Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/business/27auto.html

Where are those fools claiming Obama was a socialist! This is capitalism at its finest!

Originally posted by KidRock
Who elects the board of directors of a company?

Which group just suddenly became majority shareholder and now controls 70% of GM's stock?

I will answer:

Shareholders elect those who run a company.

The Government is now 70% of all shareholders within GM.

The US Government does not need someone on the board, it can just kick off whoever they don't like and replace them.

And the government is not just propping them up, they're controlling them..which is socialism by its very definition.


I will with for SC's rebuttal before I comment...I want to see his side before I agree with you as I could be mistaken in my understanding of it.

The best thing to do would be to solve the problem that led GM to becoming too big to fail. Break GM up into 4-5 companies, relocate each one in a different US state, auction off the rights to all of GM's brands between the five with the proceeds going to pay off investors, and sell GM's foreign divisions to foreign auto makers to pay off the rest. I'm not anticapitalist, I'm just anti-laissez faire and anit-what Ravi Batra calls Monopoly Capitalism

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The best thing to do would be to solve the problem that led GM to becoming too big to fail. Break GM up into 4-5 companies, relocate each one in a different US state, auction off the rights to all of GM's brands between the five with the proceeds going to pay off investors, and sell GM's foreign divisions to foreign auto makers to pay off the rest. I'm not anticapitalist, I'm just anti-laissez faire and anit-what Ravi Batra calls Monopoly Capitalism
That sounds like a decent idea.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The best thing to do would be to solve the problem that led GM to becoming too big to fail.

You mean stop letting unions rape these companies? Stop paying workers 20$ more per hour then the Japanese companies do? Stop paying 8,000 employees WHO DON'T COME TO WORK?

Lets not do that. Lets blame big bad CEO and wall-street.

Originally posted by KidRock
You mean stop letting unions rape these companies? Stop paying workers 20$ more per hour then the Japanese companies do? Stop paying 8,000 employees WHO DON'T COME TO WORK?

Lets not do that. Lets blame big bad CEO and wall-street.

Oh yeah, let's take away their pensions and health benefits since that's where you're getting those figures. That'll show them. In fact, we could solve this whole financial crisis by getting rid of all unions and forcing everyone who isn't currently wealthy to work for $2 an hour or in exchange for shelter and unpayable debt by bringing back unpaid labor. Screw the social safety nets and all other services, just treat all the undesirables and handicapped like Hitler did and gas them all. Oh, and maybe once someone gets sick or gets to be older than 45 they won't need healthcare or want to retire eventually. Hell, just take 'em out back and shoot 'em and charge the bullet and burial fees to the family. We don't even need to market anything in the US anymore. Just sell everything in Canada and Europe since their citizens can afford to buy things. Feudalism worked in Europe for over a thousand years. Why not just modernize it by blending it with plutocracy and bring it to the United States?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The best thing to do would be to solve the problem that led GM to becoming too big to fail. Break GM up into 4-5 companies, relocate each one in a different US state, auction off the rights to all of GM's brands between the five with the proceeds going to pay off investors, and sell GM's foreign divisions to foreign auto makers to pay off the rest. I'm not anticapitalist, I'm just anti-laissez faire and anit-what Ravi Batra calls Monopoly Capitalism

The best thing to have done would have let them go bust, take all the millions, property etc off the managers and directors who got bonuses year after year, so they end up on the friggin street.

That would maybe inspire other fat cats to actually work in the interest of the company which employs them as aposed to filling their pockets as much as they can.

Too many cars are being produced, and the natural evolution of business in a capitalist sense has to take its toll, those who make the best, economically and intelligently will survive.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who elects the board of directors of a company?

Which group just suddenly became majority shareholder and now controls 70% of GM's stock?

I will answer:

Shareholders elect those who run a company.

The Government is now 70% of all shareholders within GM.

The US Government does not need someone on the board, it can just kick off whoever they don't like and replace them.

And the government is not just propping them up, they're controlling them..which is socialism by its very definition.

Taking control of a single company isn't socialism. It might seem slightly socialist but until Obama starts nationalizing the all banks and snapping up control of healthy businesses it's much closer to non-lassie-faire capitalism than socialism. One business does not a trend make, but if Obama starts to make a habit of it I'll admit you have a point.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh yeah, let's take away their pensions and health benefits since that's where you're getting those figures. That'll show them. In fact, we could solve this whole financial crisis by getting rid of all unions and forcing everyone who isn't currently wealthy to work for $2 an hour or in exchange for shelter and unpayable debt by bringing back unpaid labor. Screw the social safety nets and all other services, just treat all the undesirables and handicapped like Hitler did and gas them all. Oh, and maybe once someone gets sick or gets to be older than 45 they won't need healthcare or want to retire eventually. Hell, just take 'em out back and shoot 'em and charge the bullet and burial fees to the family. We don't even need to market anything in the US anymore. Just sell everything in Canada and Europe since their citizens can afford to buy things. Feudalism worked in Europe for over a thousand years. Why not just modernize it by blending it with plutocracy and bring it to the United States?

This falls into the "If you don't have an answer, at least try to make someone laugh" department.

Originally posted by KidRock
The Government is now 70% of all shareholders within GM.

They said the tax payers own 70% of GM.

So, when the stock goes up I will receive my check in the mail?



It sure is.

Originally posted by KidRock
You mean stop letting unions rape these companies? Stop paying workers 20$ more per hour then the Japanese companies do? Stop paying 8,000 employees WHO DON'T COME TO WORK?

Lets not do that. Lets blame big bad CEO and wall-street.
That's a great idea. Actually, why bother to pay them at all? We could easily solve this crisis by forcing everyone in large companies into slave labor.

Also, Japanese workers don't need the benefits US ones do because government programs provide them.

I work for an escalator company, and our union field installers make $45 per hour. I know from experience that the ones in the NYC area spend 4-5 hours of the 8 hour workday just travelling to and from sites.

Originally posted by KidRock


Where are those fools claiming Obama was a socialist! This is capitalism at its finest!




???????????????????

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh yeah, let's take away their pensions and health benefits since that's where you're getting those figures. That'll show them. In fact, we could solve this whole financial crisis by getting rid of all unions and forcing everyone who isn't currently wealthy to work for $2 an hour or in exchange for shelter and unpayable debt by bringing back unpaid labor. Screw the social safety nets and all other services, just treat all the undesirables and handicapped like Hitler did and gas them all. Oh, and maybe once someone gets sick or gets to be older than 45 they won't need healthcare or want to retire eventually. Hell, just take 'em out back and shoot 'em and charge the bullet and burial fees to the family. We don't even need to market anything in the US anymore. Just sell everything in Canada and Europe since their citizens can afford to buy things. Feudalism worked in Europe for over a thousand years. Why not just modernize it by blending it with plutocracy and bring it to the United States?

Strawman.



Strawman.

He was being sarcastic the first time.

KidRock is unable to separate total state control of business from the state taking control of a business.

Kidrock can't even get his facts straight. He's basing how much they get paid on a false model that counted the value of GM workers pension, vacation days, maternity leave, personal days and healthcare and led people to conclude that they make in excess of $70 an hour which they then parroted on Fox News to take the blame away from the CEO's and blame the workers. That's like looking at the value of workers' comp and saying oh yeah, that guy at McDonald's makes $28 an hour.
One of the biggest factors in this crisis is the whole unsustainable model of supply side capitalism. One of the reasons you have so many cars is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and credit is drying up. The main factor of demand is purchasing power which has been steadily going down. The most basic step of reforming the system before you undo all the damage the last four presidents did is to hire more Americans, give them more benefits and pay them more money and then they'll buy your shit. Even a nazi sympathizer like Henry Ford figured that out.

One of the biggest factors in this crisis is the whole unsustainable model of supply side capitalism. One of the reasons you have so many cars is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and credit is drying up. The main factor of demand is purchasing power which has been steadily going down. The most basic step of reforming the system before you undo all the damage the last four presidents did is to hire more Americans, give them more benefits and pay them more money and then they'll buy your shit. Even a nazi sympathizer like Henry Ford figured that out.

GM's biggest problem is that they just assumed people would buy their cars regardless because of their brand. They were wrong. They started designing and making shit and ugly cars for higher prices than what the Japanese and Korean manufacturers were making.

They've also failed to tap into new markets in India and China which would have easily have made them huge profits.

That and they became too big. Would any of this be happening if instead of three big auto companies we had 7-10 smaller ones? We'd be saying yeah, it's terrible that Pontiac and Lincoln are failing but Chevrolet is expanding because of the hype over their Volt. I really do hope that one thing that comes out of this crisis is people remembering that too many large conglomerates and corporations are bad and that we have antitrust laws that should be enforced for the good of the economy.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
remembering that too many large conglomerates and corporations are bad

not that I disagree, but aside from laws specifically mandating how large a corporation can be, how is this enforced?

To me, given that corporations are run by individuals, setting limits on size would be limiting the ability of an individual to be successful. Almost penalizing someone for being too successful.

Stifling competition, price fixing, and corruption of the government are not measures of success. I'm a college graduate who's served his country and gotten some tail on occasion. Why should the government stifle my level of success by imposing laws on my that stop me from theiving and killing to get ahead?-would be the equivelant argument if you were talking from the legal perspective of a corporation being a person.
It's called the Sherman Antitrust Act and it's designed to prevent this web of ownership we have in which practically everything is owned by a few large companies that (depending on the industries) act as virtual monopolies or cartels and if one of them fails, they need bailing out in order to insure that millions, if not tens of millions of people don't lose their jobs.

but it is a problem because it stifles competition and creates huge problems if the company does fail.

Originally posted by jaden101
Them being too big wouldn't have been a problem if they still made innovations and designed cars to suit the current economy.

They were big enough that it didn't matter to them anymore. As far as they knew they'd become untouchable.

Ohh its a slippery slope into dictatorship the government taking over bi companies .......

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Taking control of a single company isn't socialism. It might seem slightly socialist but until Obama starts nationalizing the all banks and snapping up control of healthy businesses it's much closer to non-lassie-faire capitalism than socialism. One business does not a trend make, but if Obama starts to make a habit of it I'll admit you have a point.


It is Socialist, stop beating around it and just come out with it already. I never said we are a socialist country, I said we are BECOMING one..WHICH WE ARE. The government just took over and is operating a company.

Universal Health Care..Obama has said he wants this, he wants to run the health insurance industry as well.

Obama PREVENTED banks from giving back their stimulus money

How many more of these do you need?

Originally posted by King Kandy


Also, Japanese workers don't need the benefits US ones do because government programs provide them.

The Japanese companies operate plants in the Deep South of the US where they have non-union plants..so you fail.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why should the government stifle my level of success by imposing laws on my that stop me from theiving and killing to get ahead?

you would equate this with profiting from legitimate business?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They were big enough that it didn't matter to them anymore. As far as they knew they'd become untouchable.

Isn't that the same thing?

Originally posted by inimalist
you would equate this with profiting from legitimate business?

Define legitimate business.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Define legitimate business.

well, like, if he is saying corporate crime needs to be enforced more, it makes sense. A lot of businesses, at least how I see it, operate in semi or nearly legal ways, and that does legitimately harm others. Or, on the other hand, the laws that allow (or allowed) companies to value their stock (or however that works) on projected estimates of profits, while legal, are pretty shady and probably on a whole negative.

So, in a lot of ways I probably agree with much of what he is complaining against, however, the idea that a man cannot profit from their labour, or there is a point where one is so successful that they should be penalized for it, just don't agree with me. Government power shouldn't be used to stop people from being personally successful.

Taking that to the extreme of "oh, then i can kill and rape to be successful" is somewhat... well, a silly strawman to say the least.

Originally posted by KidRock
It is Socialist, stop beating around it and just come out with it already. I never said we are a socialist country, I said we are BECOMING one..WHICH WE ARE. The government just took over and is operating a company.

Universal Health Care..Obama has said he wants this, he wants to run the health insurance industry as well.

Obama PREVENTED banks from giving back their stimulus money

How many more of these do you need?



The Japanese companies operate plants in the Deep South of the US where they have non-union plants..so you fail.


I believe Obama is a proponent of a single payer system, not UHC.

Originally posted by inimalist
you would equate this with profiting from legitimate business?

No, I would equate it with business as usual.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe Obama is a proponent of a single payer system, not UHC.

On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Originally posted by KidRock
On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."
Doesn't mean he takes control of insurance companies. It could be government financed entirely.

Originally posted by KidRock
The Japanese companies operate plants in the Deep South of the US where they have non-union plants..so you fail.
Okay I thought you meant the workers IN JAPAN... Yeah I guess we could give people less benefits but then they could end up lacking basic necessities like health care.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Okay I thought you meant the workers IN JAPAN... Yeah I guess we could give people less benefits but then they could end up lacking basic necessities like health care.


God forbid the union worker that does nothing but sweeps floors makes less then 60,000 a year.

Maybe people should try and support themselves instead of looking to the government or the big corporations which they hate so much to keep them alive?

Originally posted by KidRock
God forbid the union worker that does nothing but sweeps floors makes less then 60,000 a year.
No but he should at least be ensured things necessary to survive. Really it's the slashing of benefits by companies that gets me more than the actual wages.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No but he should at least be ensured things necessary to survive. Really it's the slashing of benefits by companies that gets me more than the actual wages.


Why should companies be forced to pay benefits to people?

Originally posted by KidRock
Why should companies be forced to pay benefits to people?
Because otherwise the people would have their ability to live threatened.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because otherwise the people would have their ability to live threatened.

No, they can just pay for it themselves.

Should a company pay for my house or apartment? Why not? It's threatening my life, I need a roof over my head to survive.

Should a company pay for my gasoline? I need gas to get to work, if I cannot get to work I cannot buy food or pay bills.

Should a company pay for my food and groceries? It's threatening my ability to live if they don't.

If they don't pay you enough to afford those things then yes they do have an obligation to provide you with them. If a company is hiring people, they have a moral obligation to:

A. Pay people enough for them to afford the basic necessities of living.
B. Pay them less, but provide those necessities in the form of benefits.

Right now people can pay their employs minimum wage w/ no benefits which is not enough to live well in most states.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If they don't pay you enough to afford those things then yes they do have an obligation to provide you with them. If a company is hiring people, they have a moral obligation to:

A. Pay people enough for them to afford the basic necessities of living.
B. Pay them less, but provide those necessities in the form of benefits.

Right now people can pay their employs minimum wage w/ no benefits which is not enough to live well in most states.


Fail.


Minimum wage is set.


I survived, alone, on minimum wage, no problem. If they can't survive on minimum wage because they have too many kids and obligations, their fault and their problem. They should have used the rear entrance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If they don't pay you enough to afford those things then yes they do have an obligation to provide you with them. If a company is hiring people, they have a moral obligation to:

A. Pay people enough for them to afford the basic necessities of living.
B. Pay them less, but provide those necessities in the form of benefits.

Right now people can pay their employs minimum wage w/ no benefits which is not enough to live well in most states.

Who are you to dictate what is moral and what isn't?

Companies have an obligation to pay the wages that they and the employees agree on, that is all.

If the employee doesn't like it, they can choose to work someplace else.

No where is it written in law that companies have the obligation to pay these benefits. And again you cannot dictate morality.


Originally posted by dadudemon



I survived, alone, on minimum wage, no problem. If they can't survive on minimum wage because they have too many kids and obligations, their fault and their problem. They should have used the rear entrance.

But but but..the government and big companies must pay for peoples mistakes and irresponsablity!

Hah. That'll teach 'em to get all involved with Michael Bay......

Originally posted by KidRock
But but but..the government and big companies must pay for peoples mistakes and irresponsablity!

This is true. Thanks for showing me the light. I will never consider my money "my money" again. I will never consider my "hard work" in college my own efforts, but efforts for others. I will never consider the money I make from that "hard work" mine, either. It is all for those who are stupid and make mistakes. It is all for the weak and sickly, of whom I have no relation or kinship in anyway, shape, or form. Thanks to you, I have seen the light. I was being too selfish and needed to be more selfless and give my money up to be distributed. That way, those who didn't work hard, didn't do things responsably, didn't make intelligent financial decisions, won't have to worry. I'll work hard for them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is true. Thanks for showing me the light. I will never consider my money "my money" again. I will never consider my "hard work" in college my own efforts, but efforts for others. I will never consider the money I make from that "hard work" mine, either. It is all for those who are stupid and make mistakes. It is all for the weak and sickly, of whom I have no relation or kinship in anyway, shape, or form. Thanks to you, I have seen the light. I was being too selfish and needed to be more selfless and give my money up to be distributed. That way, those who didn't work hard, didn't do things responsably, didn't make intelligent financial decisions, won't have to worry. I'll work hard for them.

Read more Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Read more Ayn Rand.

I should. I've got inimalist, Bardock, recently Robtard, and now you telling me to do so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I should. I've got inimalist, Bardock, recently Robtard, and now you telling me to do so.

Exploit exploit exploit! It's the only way to live.

Actually, never read Ayn Rand. Don't really intent to either, thinly veiled books on economics aren't too appealing to me.

Wow. The nationalization of a car company. Now i've seen it all.

Well, almost. I've yet to see what automobiles the gov't's gonna come out with now. I bet it's just gonna be called "Car" with a "Radio" radio.

Employers provide people with benefits because government doesn't. Healthcare and the cost of living are so expensive right now that without some kind of benefits, the majority of people would not be able to live or retire without those benefits. Other than the morality of it, a lot of countries consider benefits as a whole to be insurance against radicalism. In short, your employer provides you healthcare and retirement so that a. you come to work everyday and you don't suffer a mental breakdown because appendicitis has driven you into bankruptcy and homelessness and b. so that you and all your coworkers don't show up at his house during dinner one night wielding incendiary devices and automatic weapons and proceed to loot his his house, shoot his children, rape his wife in front of him, drag him out into the street and hang him, and after that move on to the governor before regrouping with other partisans and planning further revolutionary activity.

Private companies should be allowed to fail. And governments shouldn't run companies.

And thanks to Obamunism we're doing the opposite of this and it's why we're broke as a country.

The founding fathers would've started a revolution had they've been alive to see this.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who are you to dictate what is moral and what isn't?
It's my opinion.

Originally posted by KidRock
Companies have an obligation to pay the wages that they and the employees agree on, that is all.
Employs are often forced into taking jobs they don't want by the job market.

Originally posted by KidRock
If the employee doesn't like it, they can choose to work someplace else.
Actually, many times they can't.

Originally posted by KidRock
No where is it written in law that companies have the obligation to pay these benefits. And again you cannot dictate morality.
Yes, the laws allow people to totally rip you off. I didn't realize that the law was always right.

I don't see the big issue with ensuring people can get health care when they're sick. But I guess you're right, actually. Who are we to care if people can pay both rent AND food costs. If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die.

Originally posted by KidRock
Companies have an obligation to pay the wages that they and the employees agree on, that is all.

Actually they're required to uphold anything they put in a contract or promise to provide . . .

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And thanks to Obamunism we're doing the opposite of this and it's why we're broke as a country.

Excluding some sort of magic there is nothing Obama could have done that would have taken the US out of debt between his election and now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's my opinion.


And your opinion doesn't agree with the current laws of this country, and hopefully never will.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Employs are often forced into taking jobs they don't want by the job market.


Employees are forced into taking jobs they don't want due to lack of education, determination and willpower. You're not forced into doing anything.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Actually, many times they can't.



See above, this is due to their own fault, nobody elses.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Yes, the laws allow people to totally rip you off. I didn't realize that the law was always right.


Yeah, what a travesty it is that a company pays an employee to work for them.

Someone just got a job working for wal-mart..WHAT?! They aren't going to buy them a house?! And a new car?! You want this employee to use THEIR OWN MONEY? Madness!

Originally posted by King Kandy

.If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die.

Strawman

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually they're required to uphold anything they put in a contract or promise to provide . . .



Yeah..exactly..

The employer and employee agree on a contract. If that contract does not include benefits, and the employee wants benefits..tough luck, go look someplace else.

Who wants to buy my share of GM? $10. Come on. My kids need wine.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah..exactly..

The employer and employee agree on a contract. If that contract does not include benefits, and the employee wants benefits..tough luck, go look someplace else.

Ah, it sounded like you were arguing that companies shouldn't give benefits.

ah social darwinism. The belief that shit never happens to anyone who doesn't deserve it until it happens to you, in which case rich mommy and daddy pay for your cancer treatment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, it sounded like you were arguing that companies shouldn't give benefits.

I am all for companies giving benefits. I am against companies being forced to give them though.

Originally posted by KidRock
And your opinion doesn't agree with the current laws of this country, and hopefully never will.
It's okay that it doesn't abide by laws because my point was about what's MORAL, not what's LEGAL. Clearly the two are divided on a number of issues.

Originally posted by KidRock
Employees are forced into taking jobs they don't want due to lack of education, determination and willpower. You're not forced into doing anything.
There are people w/ PHDs who can't get jobs in this economy.

Originally posted by KidRock
See above, this is due to their own fault, nobody elses.
Not really, you can do everything right and still end up on the streets.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, what a travesty it is that a company pays an employee to work for them.
No, but it's a travesty if a person ends up bankrupt or dead because they got sick and couldn't afford health care.

Originally posted by KidRock
Someone just got a job working for wal-mart..WHAT?! They aren't going to buy them a house?! And a new car?! You want this employee to use THEIR OWN MONEY? Madness!
Nope, just want them to be able to stay alive when they get sick. If you work for wal-mart chances are you don't have enough money to pay for that.

Originally posted by KidRock
Strawman
Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum which is considered a logically valid argument.

Originally posted by KidRock
I am all for companies giving benefits. I am against companies being forced to give them though.
Why else would they have motivation to give them? It's economically beneficial to give no benefits whatsoever.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's okay that it doesn't abide by laws because my point was about what's MORAL, not what's LEGAL. Clearly the two are divided on a number of issues.



I find it immoral to tax people at a higher rate because they're more successful, you clearly don't. Everyone's morals are different, we cannot create laws based on this.

Originally posted by King Kandy

There are people w/ PHDs who can't get jobs in this economy.



They're not looking hard enough then or they're setting their sights too high. If a college student like me can get a job paying 15/hr then they certainly should be able to find something.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Not really, you can do everything right and still end up on the streets.


And? It's still nobody's fault but their own.

Originally posted by King Kandy

No, but it's a travesty if a person ends up bankrupt or dead because they got sick and couldn't afford health care.


That is a travesty..maybe their kids or friends or whoever will realize this and get a good education and job to make sure it doesn't happen to them. Or they can sit back and think "hey, the government will take care of me..no need to go get a better education or go that extra mile to land that better job"

Originally posted by King Kandy



Nope, just want them to be able to stay alive when they get sick. If you work for wal-mart chances are you don't have enough money to pay for that.



So you care about people staying alive but not being homeless?

Originally posted by King Kandy

Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum which is considered a logically valid argument.

"If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die."

You're arguing that people who get laid off from a tanking company should die. This is a a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted..hence it's also a strawman arguement.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why else would they have motivation to give them? It's economically beneficial to give no benefits whatsoever.

It gives a greater incentive to the work force to join them for one. Look at starbucks. They gave our health coverage to their employees. When looking for work who will you go work for? Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts? Starbucks is a financially successfull company though and had the ability to give out health insurance. If you forced this onto other companies, they might not have been able to deal with the financial burden (See GM for one..)

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why else would they have motivation to give them? It's economically beneficial to give no benefits whatsoever.

Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does

A smart CFO would also know that it (A loss in short term profits) would cause investors and shareholders to lose interest. Some of the shareholders will sell and some potential investors will fail to invest. This is the primary reason why we don't have hydrogen fueling stations every 2 or 3 miles. No one is willing to foot the bill because stupid dumb ass shareholders are so short sighted.

ObaMotors.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
ObaMotors.

For someone who uses the Zapatista flag as his avatar, you're surprisingly bias against what you perceive as socialist.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I disagree, but aside from laws specifically mandating how large a corporation can be, how is this enforced?

To me, given that corporations are run by individuals, setting limits on size would be limiting the ability of an individual to be successful. Almost penalizing someone for being too successful.

It's easy to enforce. You don't stop them from getting as big as they want on their own by selling their own product. You DO stop them from buying each other out and merging.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A smart CFO would also know that it (A loss in short term profits) would cause investors and shareholders to lose interest. Some of the shareholders will sell and some potential investors will fail to invest. This is the primary reason why we don't have hydrogen fueling stations every 2 or 3 miles. No one is willing to foot the bill because stupid dumb ass shareholders are so short sighted.

Don't be ridiculous, that would imply a major flaw in capitalist theory.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
For someone who uses the Zapatista flag as his avatar, you're surprisingly bias against what you perceive as socialist.

Communism is what I have the problem with. You know, what seems like what's going on here...

And there are some aspects of socialism I disagree with to but what's going on here now is extreme and ridiculous and unnecessary.

you seem to have a very tenuous grasp on what communism and socialism are. As long as you have multiple parties, private property, and the right to vote, you aren't living in a communist state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does
Yeah right. Shareholders don't care about long term assurances of profit that may not be true, all that matters is the the next quarter is profitable. This thought process has lead to most economic problems in the US. People won't do things that have long-term benefits if it gives them losses in the next quarter because stockholders will withdraw and the company will tank.

Originally posted by KidRock
They're not looking hard enough then or they're setting their sights too high. If a college student like me can get a job paying 15/hr then they certainly should be able to find something.
FACT: There are less jobs in the US then there are people. And even less that require a PHD.

Originally posted by KidRock
And? It's still nobody's fault but their own.
What part of "doing everything right" do you not understand.


Originally posted by KidRock
That is a travesty..maybe their kids or friends or whoever will realize this and get a good education and job to make sure it doesn't happen to them. Or they can sit back and think "hey, the government will take care of me..no need to go get a better education or go that extra mile to land that better job"
Letting someone die when you could have saved them is indirect murder.

Originally posted by KidRock
So you care about people staying alive but not being homeless?
Well, on the issue of health care that's my point... Really I think everyone should be able to live WELL, not just live. Like in some Norwegian countries where people can literally have a high standard of living off welfare.

Originally posted by KidRock
"If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die."

You're arguing that people who get laid off from a tanking company should die. This is a a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted..hence it's also a strawman arguement.
No, it's not a "weak argument", it's the logical extension of what you are saying. You've said, people who don't have a job don't deserve health care. Which in many cases is the same as condemning them to death or serious illness.

Originally posted by KidRock
It gives a greater incentive to the work force to join them for one. Look at starbucks. They gave our health coverage to their employees. When looking for work who will you go work for? Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts? Starbucks is a financially successfull company though and had the ability to give out health insurance. If you forced this onto other companies, they might not have been able to deal with the financial burden (See GM for one..)
Guess what, Dunking Donuts has all the employees it needs because people can't be choosy about jobs in this economy, see the PHDs who have to work in the service industry because there are simply no jobs open for them. You can offer complete shit in benefits and you will have an ample supply of people who will take it. There are many companies who can afford to give out benefits but choose not to.

Well, we can expect crappier cars from GM now, see the Trabant in all it's government regulated glory.

I do wish Toyota had gone through with it's plan to buy the controlling share of GM a few years ago.

Just 'cause he's black don't mean 'bama's lazy.

What'll be funny, if/when the Republicans regain control of the houses and the oval and nothing changes in regards to GM, then it will be not-socialist, but good business for America.

Seems to me the Rep/Cons are okay when mega-corps having the government in their pocket, but not the opposite. I don't really see a difference either way.

Well the government is basically just the ultimate mega-corporation so I don't see why they care in the first place.

Originally posted by King Kandy
FACT: There are less jobs in the US then there are people. And even less that require a PHD.


The more education you have the more likely you are to get one of those jobs. If you have a PHD and you cannot get a job selling sneakers at Reebok, you did something wrong.

Originally posted by King Kandy


What part of "doing everything right" do you not understand.



They CLEARLY didn't do everything right if they have no job. If they did everything right, they would be employed.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Letting someone die when you could have saved them is indirect murder.


False.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Well, on the issue of health care that's my point... Really I think everyone should be able to live WELL, not just live. Like in some Norwegian countries where people can literally have a high standard of living off welfare.


Well, you didn't answer the question.

Should companies or the government provide homes and clothing for everybody in this country?

Originally posted by King Kandy

No, it's not a "weak argument", it's the logical extension of what you are saying. You've said, people who don't have a job don't deserve health care. Which in many cases is the same as condemning them to death or serious illness.


Quote please...

I said people who don't have healthcare should GET A JOB. Or use their job to pay for their own healthcare.

And yes, stating that people who get fired deserve to die is a weak strawman arguement. I never used anything like that so it cannot be an extension.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Guess what, Dunking Donuts has all the employees it needs because people can't be choosy about jobs in this economy, see the PHDs who have to work in the service industry because there are simply no jobs open for them. You can offer complete shit in benefits and you will have an ample supply of people who will take it. There are many companies who can afford to give out benefits but choose not to.

You're not forced to work any where in this country. You can always go someplace else. Companies are not required to give out benefits, some do, some don't. How is GM and all the benefits and legacy benefits they gave out doing?

I would love to see kidrock visit a school for the disabled or a pediatric cancer ward.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I would love to see kidrock visit a school for the disabled or a pediatric cancer ward.

And why is that?

I have been to cancer wards several times to visit dieing relatives.

Your just such a cheery moral absolutist. If someone's unemployed, it's their fault. If someone can't afford to get treatment, it's their fault. It's not at all the fact that healthcare costs are so high that 50% of all home foreclosures are caused by medical bills or that 70% of those are from people that are insured. It's not the fact that people can't find work because there are around 37 million unemployed people and 1 million jobs. If someone can't afford a classy internship because their being auctioned off to the highest bidder, its their fault for growing up in a poor family.
It's the kind of logic that assumes that it's a woman's fault for being raped because she wore a miniskirt.

The best part is how you always set yourself apart and above whomever you're criticising. Making yourself an elite among the rabble. Every bit the Randyan protofascist like John Galt. Your line of thinking if taken to it's logical conclusion leads to only one place.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Your just such a cheery moral absolutist. If someone's unemployed, it's their fault. If someone can't afford to get treatment, it's their fault. It's not at all the fact that healthcare costs are so high that 50% of all home foreclosures are caused by medical bills or that 70% of those are from people that are insured. It's not the fact that people can't find work because there are around 37 million unemployed people and 1 million jobs. If someone can't afford a classy internship because their being auctioned off to the highest bidder, its their fault for growing up in a poor family.
It's the kind of logic that assumes that it's a woman's fault for being raped because she wore a miniskirt.

As opposed to being what? One of the millions of mindless, "These people are poor..it's not because of drugs, lack of determination, personal responsibility..it is all SOMEONE or SOMETHING else's fault! And us hard working people have an obligation to help these people that do nothing!"

It is there fault, plain and simple. You determine who you are in this world, nobody else.

I would SUPPORT state funded health coverage for anyone under the age of 18. After that though, get a job, earn a scholarship and go to school, make something of yourself and pay you own way.

I would also support state funded coverage for the mentally handicapped.

Other then that..it's simple, get a job.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Murray

What makes her different from the millions of other kids from broken homes?

37 million umeployed, 1 million jobs.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
37 million umeployed, 1 million jobs.

Start a business.

who's gonna give someone a loan, you? Credit has been mostly frozen. People aren't consuming because their purchasing power and therefore, demand is down. The last four presidents destroyed any kind of assistance that small business can get and the judicial system doesn't enforce antitrust laws so a large corporation can easily rub your little small business out at the first sign of success unless your pimping, selling drugs, or running a pyramid scheme.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
who's gonna give someone a loan, you? Credit has been mostly frozen. People aren't consuming because their purchasing power and therefore, demand is down. The last four presidents destroyed any kind of assistance that small business can get and the judicial system doesn't enforce antitrust laws so a large corporation can easily rub your little small business out at the first sign of success unless your pimping, selling drugs, or running a pyramid scheme.

Have a good business plan and education to back it up and you will get a loan.

All I am hearing is more excuses. I cannot get a job because of this, or that or the other thing. Start a business? Oh I can't because of this and that.

People still open businesses and find jobs during a recession. Again, if a college student like myself with nothing more then a high school diploma can get a job paying 15/hour then people can find something. It's there own fault if they feel they're too good to wash dishes or do landscaping..not mine. And I don't want to pay for them to feel better about themselves.

NO LOANS.

But hey, if it's all these peoples' fault anyway and their such a drain on society, why not come to the classic government solution that people with your line of thinking have. Just draft everyone in the military and use Russian/Rumsfeld style military tactics to thin out their ranks and avoid paying out anything under the GI bill. Put a whole squad of colorblind people on a night mission near Faluja and give them red night vision goggles and a color coded map.

And hey, maybe if we study these lousy people who can't get work cuz it's their own fault, maybe we'll find some demographic trends and we can solve the problem by offering Proctor and Gamble no bid contracts to produce cattle cars and Monsanto to produce human grade round up with Zyklon B and everyone knows the rest of the story. Then we won't have all these damn screwed up people and their families who got downsized form their dishwashing jobs, don't have the skills to start a business and whose only choices for jobs are unpaid internships that are nearly impossible to get and usually make you pay your employer to stay employed or the thousands of multilevel marketing schemes like amway that you find on craigslist where maybe you can crawl deeper in debt as you earn your base pay of $150 a month and unsold merchandise piles up in your home since no one has the money or the stupidity to buy it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
NO LOANS.

But hey, if it's all these peoples' fault anyway and their such a drain on society, why not come to the classic government solution that people with your line of thinking have. Just draft everyone in the military and use Russian/Rumsfeld style military tactics to thin out their ranks and avoid paying out anything under the GI bill. Put a whole squad of colorblind people on a night mission near Faluja and give them red night vision goggles and a color coded map.

And hey, maybe if we study these lousy people who can't get work cuz it's their own fault, maybe we'll find some demographic trends and we can solve the problem by offering Proctor and Gamble no bid contracts to produce cattle cars and Monsanto to produce human grade round up with Zyklon B and everyone knows the rest of the story. Then we won't have all these damn screwed up people and their families who got downsized form their dishwashing jobs, don't have the skills to start a business and whose only choices for jobs are unpaid internships that are nearly impossible to get and usually make you pay your employer to stay employed or the thousands of multilevel marketing schemes like amway that you find on craigslist where maybe you can crawl deeper in debt as you earn your base pay of $150 a month and unsold merchandise piles up in your home since no one has the money or the stupidity to buy it.

http://dancleary.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5540ff48a88340112790efe3028a4-800wi

How you get we should round people up and gas them with Zyklon B from me arguing people should stop being lazy and get an education and a good job is beyond me.

Unless you're arguing it's genetically impossible for people to actually earn scholarships to pay off school debt, graduate, get a good job and be successful?

I'm coming to the conclusion that your line of thinking has HISTORICALLY ALWAYS COME TO.

As for your little example of yourself. I'm a college graduate and an AmeriCorps alumnus. I have more skills, job experience, and certifications than people twice my age and i'm in the process of applying to law school and all I need is a full time job till next August. I have been unemployed for six months and have gotten few if any callbacks. I apply to approximately 15 jobs a day all over the country. I have been forced to live off my savings and credit and move back in with my parents because states HATE AmeriCorps volunteers and federal employees and despite paying for unemployment insurance, I only qualify for my part time jobs last year totaling $650 over six weeks which thanks to Ronald Reagan is taxed at 14%. I don't qualify for any other assistance because I'm living at home and now have no health insurance, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. I can't join the military because I had surgery in the last year and even if I get into school right now, my credit sucks because of my balance (I always pay on time) so I can't get a loan and my total AmeriCorps education award is less than $5,000 which thanks to Bush is taxed at 30%. That's my story, so what did I do wrong?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm coming to the conclusion that your line of thinking has HISTORICALLY ALWAYS COME TO.

As for your little example of yourself. I'm a college graduate and an AmeriCorps alumnus. I have more skills, job experience, and certifications than people twice my age and i'm in the process of applying to law school and all I need is a full time job till next August. I have been unemployed for six months and have gotten few if any callbacks. I apply to approximately 15 jobs a day all over the country. I have been forced to live off my savings and credit and move back in with my parents because states HATE AmeriCorps volunteers and federal employees and despite paying for unemployment insurance, I only qualify for my part time jobs last year totaling $650 over six weeks which thanks to Ronald Reagan is taxed at 14%. I don't qualify for any other assistance because I'm living at home and now have no health insurance, no food stamps, no welfare, nothing. I can't join the military because I had surgery in the last year and even if I get into school right now, my credit sucks because of my balance (I always pay on time) so I can't get a loan and my total AmeriCorps education award is less than $5,000 which thanks to Bush is taxed at 30%. That's my story, so what did I do wrong?

15 jobs a day? You're clearly doing something wrong if you apply for over 100 jobs a week and are not hired. Unless you're bullshitting us all.

You said you got callbacks..maybe you should have capitalized on them..but you failed to do so.

Also..you have no health insurance, yet you were able to afford surgery? You rich elitist scum, dont you know? Only the rich can afford to get their health taken care of in this country. Or let me guess, you had insurance when you got it done, right?

How exactly does your credit suck when you always pay on time?

What was your major and where did you go to school? Did you have any internships while in school? Any work experience? Did you just graduate then do nothing with your degree?

your balance effects your credit. I had insurance when I had surgery and it still cost 7,000 dollars. I followed up on the call backs and wasn't hired after two interviews or didn't take the jobs because they were obvious pyramid schemes, i.e. pay for a buttload of knives yourself and then sell them door to door, commission only and sign this contract saying you have to do it etc.

I double majored in political science and international affairs with a minor in environmental science. I'm certified CPR/First Aid, First Responder, Chainsaw operator, Tiers 1 and 2 weatherization, Microsoft, Blackberry, and OSI survival and crew leadership. I speak fluent English, Russian, and German.

I have experience in retail sales and customer service, fundraising, appointment setting, food preparation, journalism, canvassing, crew leading, working with youth, weatherization, trail work/wilderness reclamation, warehouse work, technical support, delivery driving, event planning and budgeting, data entry, and lobbying.

Oh, and I write, compose and play music, and host a webcast with my best friend.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
your balance effects your credit. I had insurance when I had surgery and it still cost 7,000 dollars. I followed up on the call backs and wasn't hired after two interviews or didn't take the jobs because they were obvious pyramid schemes, i.e. pay for a buttload of knives yourself and then sell them door to door, commission only and sign this contract saying you have to do it etc.

I double majored in political science and international affairs with a minor in environmental science. I'm certified CPR/First Aid, First Responder, Chainsaw operator, Tiers 1 and 2 weatherization, Microsoft, Blackberry, and OSI survival and crew leadership. I speak fluent English, Russian, and German.

I have experience in retail sales and customer service, fundraising, appointment setting, food preparation, journalism, canvassing, crew leading, working with youth, weatherization, trail work/wilderness reclamation, warehouse work, technical support, delivery driving, event planning and budgeting, data entry, and lobbying.

Oh, and I write, compose and play music, and host a webcast with my best friend.

So with all those credentials..why were people hired over you? What was the job for?

If you cannot get hired with the resume, then you're not looking hard enough or are unwilling to take certain jobs, plain and simple. Unless me and all my friends that are home from school are just incredibly lucky and all happened to land jobs for the summer, you're doing something wrong in not being able to find something.

If not you, who should be blamed for your inability to find a job?

Originally posted by KidRock
The more education you have the more likely you are to get one of those jobs. If you have a PHD and you cannot get a job selling sneakers at Reebok, you did something wrong.
If you get a job at Reebok when you had a PHD you won't be able to pay off your loans, get health care, or any of the things I talked about.


Originally posted by KidRock
They CLEARLY didn't do everything right if they have no job. If they did everything right, they would be employed.
Or maybe just maybe there aren't enough jobs for people to all have one.


Originally posted by KidRock
False.
You support letting people die under your watch? That's so unchristian it's not even funny.


Originally posted by KidRock
Well, you didn't answer the question.

Should companies or the government provide homes and clothing for everybody in this country?
If they can pay for that then they should.


Originally posted by KidRock
Quote please...

I said people who don't have healthcare should GET A JOB. Or use their job to pay for their own healthcare.
They CAN'T get a job because there's a 10 million deficit in job openings.

Originally posted by KidRock
And yes, stating that people who get fired deserve to die is a weak strawman arguement. I never used anything like that so it cannot be an extension.
No, you said people who got fired have to get a job or else go without health insurance. Hence, they either have to get a job (that may not exist) or just roll up and die.

Originally posted by KidRock
You're not forced to work any where in this country. You can always go someplace else. Companies are not required to give out benefits, some do, some don't. How is GM and all the benefits and legacy benefits they gave out doing?
You can't go away somewhere else because there are no job openings anywhere else.

No point in arguing, he lives in an absolutist fantasy world

Ya luche govarue po ruski nu tak kak u menya nyetu Ruski shift ya paprobayu govarit s agndliskmimi bukvomi. Moy webcast poka tolka na Facebook tak kak maya partneursha ne hotchet evo stavit na itunes. Ya oochile nyemetski (Deutsche Sprecht) v shkolye nu uzhe dovno ne govaril e mnogo poteral. Ya paluchil mayee sertifikatzie cherez kontraktnayu robotu dlya Verizon Wireless.

(elaborate translation: To be honest, I speak better Russian and I learned German in school. I can understand very well but my grammar kind of sucks since I haven't spoken or used it in five years. Perhaps fluent was a bit hasty? Plus my browser really doesn't want me to type an esset, any umlaut letters, or cyrillic script for some reason. time to update. My webcast is currently exclusive to facebook but if my partner agrees and we get better software we'll try getting on itunes as a podcast. I got my certifications working for a verizon wireless contractor and essentially involved the basics of using windows and how to use and program a blackberry.)

Ich Mochte Kurz Arbeit!!

Oh, and if you want to know why I didn't just go into google translator to get the cyrillic lettering for the Russian, it's grammar sucks.

Originally posted by KidRock
So with all those credentials..why were people hired over you? What was the job for?

If you cannot get hired with the resume, then you're not looking hard enough or are unwilling to take certain jobs, plain and simple. Unless me and all my friends that are home from school are just incredibly lucky and all happened to land jobs for the summer, you're doing something wrong in not being able to find something.

If not you, who should be blamed for your inability to find a job?

He probably couldn't pass the drug test.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ya luche govarue po ruski nu tak kak u menya nyetu Ruski shift ya paprobayu govarit s agndliskmimi bukvomi. Moy webcast poka tolka na Facebook tak kak maya partneursha ne hotchet evo stavit na itunes. Ya oochile nyemetski (Deutsche Sprecht) v shkolye nu uzhe dovno ne govaril e mnogo poteral. Ya paluchil mayee sertifikatzie cherez kontraktnayu robotu dlya Verizon Wireless.

(elaborate translation: To be honest, I speak better Russian and I learned German in school. I can understand very well but my grammar kind of sucks since I haven't spoken or used it in five years. Perhaps fluent was a bit hasty? Plus my browser really doesn't want me to type an esset, any umlaut letters, or cyrillic script for some reason. time to update. My webcast is currently exclusive to facebook but if my partner agrees and we get better software we'll try getting on itunes as a podcast. I got my certifications working for a verizon wireless contractor and essentially involved the basics of using windows and how to use and program a blackberry.)

Ich Mochte Kurz Arbeit!!

Oh, and if you want to know why I didn't just go into google translator to get the cyrillic lettering for the Russian, it's grammar sucks.

Is the problem in your job search that you will only be available for a limited time, maybe?

Originally posted by KidRock


How you get we should round people up and gas them with Zyklon B from me arguing people should stop being lazy and get an education and a good job is beyond me.

Unless you're arguing it's genetically impossible for people to actually earn scholarships to pay off school debt, graduate, get a good job and be successful?

You're conveniently ignoring that not everyone (yes, even in America) has the opportunity to go to school and acquire a degree that will open jobs for them that don't require 'dirty hands' at the end of the day.

So those people need health care benefits, retirement funds etc. Work refom wasn't all that bad as you seem to make it out to be, guaranteed employee rights is good thing(not unions necessarily), least we go back to the days when a person could get fired for taking longer than 30 seconds when taking their lunch and shit break.

I don't do drugs, my pee is clean (unless you count the three cans of red bull cola I drank last year along with the legally prescribed percocet post surgery). I never mention to my potential employers that i'll probably need to be employed only for a year or less. There's just nobody hiring and those who are don't call back either because they have so many applications it takes them six weeks to sort them, or because they lose money and decide they can't afford to hire anyone.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I don't do drugs, my pee is clean (unless you count the three cans of red bull cola I drank last year along with the legally prescribed percocet post surgery). I never mention to my potential employers that i'll probably need to be employed only for a year or less. There's just nobody hiring and those who are don't call back either because they have so many applications it takes them six weeks to sort them, or because they lose money and decide they can't afford to hire anyone.

It was just a joke!

Good luck on the job thing.

Originally posted by KidRock


Where are those fools claiming Obama was a socialist! This is capitalism at its finest!

QFT.

In case no one got the reference, the WHO found that each can of red bull cola is 0.8% cocaine and germany has banned it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In case no one got the reference, the WHO found that each can of red bull cola is 0.8% cocaine and germany has banned it.

??

really? was it a byproduct or were they putting coke into it?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you get a job at Reebok when you had a PHD you won't be able to pay off your loans, get health care, or any of the things I talked about.


Why not? With a PHD would be able to eventually move to management within the Reebok store and make enough to support yourself. Although you ****ed up in the first place going for your PHD without having a job plan in mind.

Originally posted by King Kandy



Or maybe just maybe there aren't enough jobs for people to all have one.


Hence the reason you should make your resume as competitive as possible to ensure you get those few jobs.

Originally posted by King Kandy

You support letting people die under your watch? That's so unchristian it's not even funny.



1) Why do I care what is Christian and what isnt?

2) Nice dodge, you realized how moronic the statement of "indirect murder" was so you backpedaled away. What a joke.

Originally posted by King Kandy



If they can pay for that then they should.



What companies can afford to pay for all their employees houses, cars, clothing, food, health insurance, ect?

That is what you support?

Originally posted by King Kandy

They CAN'T get a job because there's a 10 million deficit in job openings.


Waiting for that quote to where I said people without jobs don't deserve health care and should die? Or did you pull it out of your ass?

Originally posted by King Kandy


No, you said people who got fired have to get a job or else go without health insurance. Hence, they either have to get a job (that may not exist) or just roll up and die.



So..they should probably get a job, correct? Weird logic I know.

Originally posted by King Kandy


You can't go away somewhere else because there are no job openings anywhere else.

Of course there are, me and 3 other people I know all obtained one for the summer. People just don't look hard enough or don't want to work certain jobs.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
No point in arguing, he lives in an absolutist fantasy world

So I do want to know the answer to this:

With all your amaaaazing credentials, who is to blame for your inability to get a job?

Rationally, circumstance and backwards social policy

Irrationally, the entire generation of baby boomers who shat all over this country.

I do like he admits that there aren't enough jobs but still blames people for not getting jobs that don't exist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Rationally, circumstance and backwards social policy

Irrationally, the entire generation of baby boomers who shat all over this country.

So it's not your fault at all whatsoever that you have no job?

It's the fault of a bunch of old men in Washington DC?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In case no one got the reference, the WHO found that each can of red bull cola is 0.8% cocaine and germany has banned it. It's not banned, yet.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hItGF3n5rzcEdW6PnVTP-n8zY1agD98DCUQ01

so, if they are using parts of the coca leaf... doesn't that mean they are harvesting the coca leaf? Which, unless I'm way off, should be illegal in every western nation?

There could be a legal way around it, buying an already processed product that contains the coca extract from a country that doesn't have a problem with it.

Though it's really silly, since 0.8 cocaine is nothing, caffeine is probably worse for you and more addicting.

BUT IT IS DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
since 0.8 cocaine is nothing

only when the measure is micrograms

Originally posted by KidRock
Why not? With a PHD would be able to eventually move to management within the Reebok store and make enough to support yourself. Although you ****ed up in the first place going for your PHD without having a job plan in mind.
Nope, all the high-level jobs in Reebok are taken, in fact there are layoffs and reductions. And he did have a good job, but the company he worked for tanked.

Originally posted by KidRock
Hence the reason you should make your resume as competitive as possible to ensure you get those few jobs.
Everybody could have every possible skill and benefit and there would still be 10 million unemployed people minimum.


Originally posted by KidRock
1) Why do I care what is Christian and what isnt?

2) Nice dodge, you realized how moronic the statement of "indirect murder" was so you backpedaled away. What a joke.
1. I seem to recall you saying you were Christian in another thread, but if i'm mistaken my apologies.

2. No, I still believe that. Letting someone die is pretty much killing them, because you caused the loss of a life.

Originally posted by KidRock
What companies can afford to pay for all their employees houses, cars, clothing, food, health insurance, ect?

That is what you support?
We should have AT LEAST as many government subsidies as Sweden has. They tax like 70% and still have the highest standard of living in the world, even the people who don't work.


Originally posted by KidRock
Waiting for that quote to where I said people without jobs don't deserve health care and should die? Or did you pull it out of your ass?
You said if they can't find jobs then we shouldn't pay for the health care. You never said they should die but that would be the obvious conclusion from that line of thinking, since people who can't get treatment have a much greater risk of dying.

Originally posted by KidRock
So..they should probably get a job, correct? Weird logic I know.
10 MILLION JOB DEFICIT.


Originally posted by KidRock
Of course there are, me and 3 other people I know all obtained one for the summer. People just don't look hard enough or don't want to work certain jobs.
Let's say EVERY SINGLE PERSON did EVERYTHING they should have done.

10 million of them won't get a job anyway.

Originally posted by King Kandy
We should have AT LEAST as many government subsidies as Sweden has. They tax like 70% and still have the highest standard of living in the world, even the people who don't work.

And you don't see problems with that? I'm not supporting KR's theories but if your not working you shouldn't having a high standard of living, it's detrimental to pretty much any system of self improvement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And you don't see problems with that? I'm not supporting KR's theories but if your not working you shouldn't having a high standard of living, it's detrimental to pretty much any system of self improvement.
Er, I didn't realize Utopia was a bad thing. If you can create eternal prosperity for all then who cares?

I think because the theory is that those who work and make the money to have an even HIGHER standard of living should be able to, instead of being brought down by those who haven't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Er, I didn't realize Utopia was a bad thing. If you can create eternal prosperity for all then who cares?

I didn't realize utopia was objective. I also don't see how it's a utopia for the people that are doing tons of work and not getting anything for it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't realize utopia was objective. I also don't see how it's a utopia for the people that are doing tons of work and not getting anything for it.
They get to live in a country with the highest standard of living and where education and healthcare are 100% free (actually you get paid for joining higher education) and you can live wonderfully for next to nothing... If people can only be satisfied by having more than other people there's a deep problem.

It's not about being happy because you have more, it's about being rewarded for what you do. Anyone can be a ditch digger, but it takes brains, determination, and sacrifice to be a partner at a law office. And that should be rewarded.

And God forbid anyone should take a job out of altruism...

ya, I don't work for others' benefit. I find it silly that I would be expected, no, obligated to.

WTF? I'm just saying that that "eternal prosperity" won't be so eternal if everyone is a ditch digger, obviously everyone has to do their part to keep that sort of society working. But apparently the Scandinavian countries have it figured out already w/ the best economic system in the world.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Nope, all the high-level jobs in Reebok are taken, in fact there are layoffs and reductions. And he did have a good job, but the company he worked for tanked.



Then he is an idiot. If I can get a job, he should be able to. Like I have been saying, he is either too lazy or too inept and is worth the paper his degree was printed on.

What is your solution? How has the socialism that you support worked thus far for Obama with GM? Oh thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars down the drain.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/46/04.php


Originally posted by King Kandy


Everybody could have every possible skill and benefit and there would still be 10 million unemployed people minimum.



That is why everyone should work as hard as they can to obtain the best education so they will actually get one of those jobs.

Those who work hard = rewarded with a job and money

Those who don't work hard = get nothing.

It's a weird idea, isnt it?

Originally posted by King Kandy





1. I seem to recall you saying you were Christian in another thread, but if i'm mistaken my apologies.

2. No, I still believe that. Letting someone die is pretty much killing them, because you caused the loss of a life.



I don't think I have ever said that, but very mature of you to attack someones religion out of nowhere..how liberal of you.

2. You're not a very intelligent person then if you believe that.

So if you see someone get hit by a car and you don't give them CPR, you should be brought up on murder charges and sent to prison for life? Never mind, don't bother answering..you're too irrational and detached from reality to debate this topic any longer.

Originally posted by King Kandy




We should have AT LEAST as many government subsidies as Sweden has. They tax like 70% and still have the highest standard of living in the world, even the people who don't work.




We have more illegal immigrants in this country then Sweden or Norway does a general population. With so many people raping and taking advantage of these services the country would cripple, even if you taxed the richest people at 99%..we simply have TOO MANY PEOPLE for it to work.

Never mind the fact that you support people who don't work at all living in the same standard as people who do work.

Why would I even go to work then if I can live as well as the guy making 100,000 can?

And how do you suppose the government or a company can pay to buy a house, a car, food, healthcare and clothes for more then 36 million people (that is just those below the poverty line..never mind the number that are just making minimum wage or less then 50,000)

Do you just not see how crazy this fantasy world you dream of is? How it's impossible to implement without literally having to enslave people to force them to work? Or is everything sunshine and rainbows?

Look at China, why arent they this socialist utopia you praise so much? Why isnt their standard of living like Sweden or Norways?


Originally posted by King Kandy

You said if they can't find jobs then we shouldn't pay for the health care. You never said they should die but that would be the obvious conclusion from that line of thinking, since people who can't get treatment have a much greater risk of dying.



I didn't say that, thanks for admitting you were lieing.

And no, it wouldn't be the obvious line of thinking. The obvious line of thinking would be that they should start a business, find a job that is out there, sell something..do anything they can to make money. You act as if there are 0 jobs available and 0 opportunities to make money in this country.

Originally posted by King Kandy


10 MILLION JOB DEFICIT.


Let's say EVERY SINGLE PERSON did EVERYTHING they should have done.

10 million of them won't get a job anyway.

You cannot do everything right and not have a job, it's a logical fallacy.

It's like saying, "I was in a swimming race, I swam in the pool, I did nothing wrong! I should have won! I was swimming!"

That is why you need to make yourself the most competitive for that job. Those who don't work the hardest to obtain the best credentials and application are forced to suffer, because they didn't put the most work in.

Like I said, those who work the hardest, succeed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
WTF? I'm just saying that that "eternal prosperity" won't be so eternal if everyone is a ditch digger, obviously everyone has to do their part to keep that sort of society working. But apparently the Scandinavian countries have it figured out already w/ the best economic system in the world.

Why would people do their part when in your world they can do nothing and make the same as someone that is working their ass off? How would society operate?

Originally posted by KidRock
Why would people do their part when in your world they can do nothing and make the same as someone that is working their ass off? How would society operate?
Same way it does in Sweden.

And you do know not everyone "makes the same", there are large differences in wealth. Only thing is that if you're poor you can still have a healthy and comfortable lifestyle. If you have money to spend on luxuries, go ahead, but nobody should have to pay for necessities.

Originally posted by KidRock
Then he is an idiot. If I can get a job, he should be able to. Like I have been saying, he is either too lazy or too inept and is worth the paper his degree was printed on.

What is your solution? How has the socialism that you support worked thus far for Obama with GM? Oh thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars down the drain.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/46/04.php
On the other hand, TRUE socialism as used in Scandinavian countries is working out fine.

Originally posted by KidRock
That is why everyone should work as hard as they can to obtain the best education so they will actually get one of those jobs.

Those who work hard = rewarded with a job and money

Those who don't work hard = get nothing.

It's a weird idea, isnt it?
Yeah, it's a weird idea that the second person should be left out with no help at all.

Originally posted by KidRock
I don't think I have ever said that, but very mature of you to attack someones religion out of nowhere..how liberal of you.

2. You're not a very intelligent person then if you believe that.

So if you see someone get hit by a car and you don't give them CPR, you should be brought up on murder charges and sent to prison for life? Never mind, don't bother answering..you're too irrational and detached from reality to debate this topic any longer.
How the hell did I "attack someones religion"? All I said was that it was non-christian. It is. It wasn't even your religion so I don't see where you thought there was some sort of attack. Even if you were, the attack would have been on your moral character, not christianity.

Yes, it is a huge moral failure if you see someone dying and just choose to ignore it. Why you would deliberately refuse to help save lives is beyond me.

BTW, are you a christian? If so the hypocrisy would be far to much for me to continue this conversation, so i'd appreciate knowing.
Originally posted by KidRock
We have more illegal immigrants in this country then Sweden or Norway does a general population. With so many people raping and taking advantage of these services the country would cripple, even if you taxed the richest people at 99%..we simply have TOO MANY PEOPLE for it to work.

Never mind the fact that you support people who don't work at all living in the same standard as people who do work.

Why would I even go to work then if I can live as well as the guy making 100,000 can?
Same reason people in Sweden work: People enjoy having things beyond the level of survival. People are content to be payed less. Here's an example.

1. In the US Doctors demand hugely exhorbitant fees because they've accumulated massive student debt to pay off. Nobody can pay these prices, so only insurance companies can. Poor people can't afford anything at all.

2. In Sweden, the colleges and med schools are 100% free so doctors work for less pay, and everyone can afford to pay. If they can't, government pays for it. Completely un-capitalist, and yet their healthcare system is rated far higher.

Originally posted by KidRock
And how do you suppose the government or a company can pay to buy a house, a car, food, healthcare and clothes for more then 36 million people (that is just those below the poverty line..never mind the number that are just making minimum wage or less then 50,000)
20% of people in America own 85% of the wealth. If this was distributed more evenly, there would be easily enough to pay for it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you just not see how crazy this fantasy world you dream of is? How it's impossible to implement without literally having to enslave people to force them to work? Or is everything sunshine and rainbows?
It's working incredibly well in Sweden, Norway, Iceland...

Originally posted by KidRock
Look at China, why arent they this socialist utopia you praise so much? Why isnt their standard of living like Sweden or Norways?
China is actually a lot more capitalist than Sweden. And they have a more corrupt government.



Originally posted by KidRock
I didn't say that, thanks for admitting you were lieing.

And no, it wouldn't be the obvious line of thinking. The obvious line of thinking would be that they should start a business, find a job that is out there, sell something..do anything they can to make money. You act as if there are 0 jobs available and 0 opportunities to make money in this country.
There is actually a deficit in jobs, so yeah for some people there are 0.


Originally posted by KidRock
You cannot do everything right and not have a job, it's a logical fallacy.

It's like saying, "I was in a swimming race, I swam in the pool, I did nothing wrong! I should have won! I was swimming!"

That is why you need to make yourself the most competitive for that job. Those who don't work the hardest to obtain the best credentials and application are forced to suffer, because they didn't put the most work in.

Like I said, those who work the hardest, succeed.
What if everyone worked equaly hard, and that was the hardest anyone could possibly work? By that logic, they should all have jobs but in fact 10 million wouldn't.

Originally posted by King Kandy

It's working incredibly well in Iceland...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Originally posted by Bardock42
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will respond later, but thank you Bardock for pointing out what an epic failure that comment was haha.

Originally posted by King Kandy
On the other hand, TRUE socialism as used in Scandinavian countries is working out fine.



And again..what works in one country doesn't mean it will work in another.

The United States has more illegal immigrants then any Scandinavian country does population.

The US has a population greater then Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Cuba combined.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Yeah, it's a weird idea that the second person should be left out with no help at all.



That isn't a weird idea at all. People need to help themselves first. Why should people get paid for doing nothing?

Originally posted by King Kandy



How the hell did I "attack someones religion"? All I said was that it was non-christian. It is. It wasn't even your religion so I don't see where you thought there was some sort of attack. Even if you were, the attack would have been on your moral character, not christianity.

Yes, it is a huge moral failure if you see someone dying and just choose to ignore it. Why you would deliberately refuse to help save lives is beyond me.


It's the fact that you bring it up, "How christian of you!"..you're making a judgment on someone based on their religion. It's just ignorant at the very least.

LOL going from "It's murder" to "it's a moral failure".

So again, should people be charged and put in prison for life if they don't help someone?

Should an entire beach of people be put in prison for life if they see someone drowning and don't go and help?

I find it immoral to take 70% of what someone works for and give it to someone that doesn't work at all..you support and find this to be good. So I will take your judgments on morality with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by King Kandy


Same reason people in Sweden work: People enjoy having things beyond the level of survival. People are content to be payed less. Here's an example.

1. In the US Doctors demand hugely exhorbitant fees because they've accumulated massive student debt to pay off. Nobody can pay these prices, so only insurance companies can. Poor people can't afford anything at all.

2. In Sweden, the colleges and med schools are 100% free so doctors work for less pay, and everyone can afford to pay. If they can't, government pays for it. Completely un-capitalist, and yet their healthcare system is rated far higher.


1. Your arguement fails, the reason medical costs are so high are not because of doctor's student debt lmao.

By that logic all those doctors that get scholarships or free rides or their parents money and put through med school should have very low fee's, correct?

2. Nothing is free in Sweden, it's called tax money.

Originally posted by King Kandy


20% of people in America own 85% of the wealth. If this was distributed more evenly, there would be easily enough to pay for it.



Can I see some proof that the top 20% of this country can pay for a car, a house, food, gas, healthcare and clothing for the other 150,000,000+ people in the country? And what do you propose we tax these top 20%..how much of their income? I would love to read the study proving this..unless you're pulling it out of your ass.

And when all those people are content with their house, car, food, gas and health care..who will pay for it when the rich die?



Originally posted by King Kandy


It's working incredibly well in Sweden, Norway, Iceland...



Again, look at how many people they have compared to us.

And no, it's not working incredibly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis



Originally posted by King Kandy

China is actually a lot more capitalist than Sweden. And they have a more corrupt government.



So then use the Soviet Union as your example. Everything is provided for by the government, everything is taken care of by them.

Is that the utopia you want where everyone is taken care of by the government and taxes? Was the Soviet Union the ideal economy?

Originally posted by King Kandy


There is actually a deficit in jobs, so yeah for some people there are 0.



So the most competitive get the jobs, those who worked the hardest get the money. It's called capitalism, you get what you work for.

Originally posted by King Kandy


What if everyone worked equaly hard, and that was the hardest anyone could possibly work? By that logic, they should all have jobs but in fact 10 million wouldn't.

But that isn't the case. Using a hypothetical situation doesn't make an arguement for you.

Originally posted by KidRock
And no, it's not working incredibly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis

According to that their problems are due to not being socialist enough. Do you even read the stuff you post?

Originally posted by KidRock
So the most competitive get the jobs, those who worked the hardest get the money. It's called capitalism, you get what you work for.

Except that will a 10 million job deficit it doesn't matter how hard people work, there will always be ten million people without jobs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to that their problems are due to not being socialist enough. Do you even read the stuff you post?


Sounds like the same bullshit excuse used in America with our housing problem.

The government pushes Sub-prime mortgages on banks forcing them to give out those bad loans. Uh oh, the housing crisis hits up and Washington points the finger at the banks for giving them out..now they need to be regulated by the government to make sure this doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Except that will a 10 million job deficit it doesn't matter how hard people work, there will always be ten million people without jobs.

So shouldnt those jobs go to the people who work the hardest and compete the most?

Originally posted by KidRock
So shouldnt those jobs go to the people who work the hardest and compete the most?

Of course, but should the people who didn't get them be left to starve?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course, but should the people who didn't get them be left to starve?

What exactly should they expect to happen to themselves if they don't work hard and look at their future?

Shouldnt we give people more incentives to work harder and smarter and less reasons to be lazy?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course, but should the people who didn't get them be left to starve? Yes, slow down population growth.

Originally posted by KidRock
What exactly should they expect to happen to themselves if they don't work hard and look at their future?

Shouldnt we give people more incentives to work harder and smarter and less reasons to be lazy?

So, yes then? Why not simply shoot them?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, yes then? Why not simply shoot them? That's murder.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, yes then? Why not simply shoot them?

Why would we do that?

Originally posted by Mindset
That's murder.

So is starving someone to death.

Also, murder is a moral construct. Money is apparently all that matters and those people have been established has worthless. Actually he considers them less than worthless, because they'll be draining society.

Originally posted by KidRock
Why would we do that?

They'll never get jobs (because the jobs don't exist) and as long as they're alive they're just being parasites if we use your system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So is starving someone to death.

Also, murder is a moral construct. Money is apparently all that matters and those people have been established has worthless. Actually he considers them less than worthless, because they'll be draining society.

They starve themselves. Nobody pulled the apple from their mouth, they didn't reach out and grab it.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to that their problems are due to not being socialist enough. Do you even read the stuff you post?



Except that will a 10 million job deficit it doesn't matter how hard people work, there will always be ten million people without jobs.

Or they can go back to school and get a gread education and take one of those millions of jobs from someone else..thus making that other person to back and improve themselves to get back into the competition and earn their job back. Thus capitalism at work!


Or stop bitching and join the army..I hear they're always recruiting, eh?

Originally posted by KidRock
They starve themselves. Nobody pulled the apple from their mouth, they didn't reach out and grab it.

They reached out, the apple was taken before they got it because there aren't enough apples for everyone. So yeah, basically the food is being taken right out of their mouths.

Objectivists that think they're rational people sure are amusing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They reached out, the apple was taken before they got it because there aren't enough apples for everyone. So yeah, basically the food is being taken right out of their mouths.

Objectivists that think they're rational people sure are amusing.

There are currently 278,975,060 employed people in the US.

All those people reached for the apple and reached far enough to grab it, if those others didn't grab it then it's their own fault..nobody elses.

If one of those unemployed people cannot get an education that is good enough to grab a job from one of those people then it's their own fault.

Or again, join the military..plenty of jobs there.

So in your worldview, some sort of Malthusian catastrophe would be a great thing. Boy, if this were 1934, I'm really curious what your opinion of the business plot would be. Which side you'd be on.

Originally posted by KidRock
There are currently 278,975,060 employed people in the US.


D-did you just subtract 30 million from the population of the US?


Cause that's not how it works...

Originally posted by KidRock
There are currently 278,975,060 employed people in the US.

All those people reached for the apple and reached far enough to grab it, if those others didn't grab it then it's their own fault..nobody elses.

If one of those unemployed people cannot get an education that is good enough to grab a job from one of those people then it's their own fault.

Or again, join the military..plenty of jobs there.

I know people with PhD's who have been made redundant in the current economy so having a poor education has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by jaden101
I know people with PhD's who have been made redundant in the current economy so having a poor education has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107149/the-hardest-jobs-to-fill-in-america?mod=career-leadership

If you're looking for work in any of these fields, you're in luck.

What a coincidence..jobs that require advanced degrees are actually struggling to find workers.

B..but this cant be right! There are no jobs out there!

Lets wish the best of luck to the man with the high school diploma that will accept no less then 6 figures.

those numbers have to be wrong unless we have huge numbers of infants and children working.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
those numbers have to be wrong unless we have huge numbers of infants and children working. What numbers are you talking about? His 270 000 000 people working in the US? Or some numbers in the article he quoted last?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What numbers are you talking about? His 270 000 000 people working in the US? Or some numbers in the article he quoted last?

It was a point I was making.

Millions of people in the United States have jobs. The unemployment rate is less than 10%. If you cannot get an education that is good enough to steal one of those millions of jobs away then you're not trying or looking hard enough.

Obviously babies and retired people aren't working.

Originally posted by KidRock
It was a point I was making.

Millions of people in the United States have jobs. The unemployment rate is less than 10%. If you cannot get an education that is good enough to steal one of those millions of jobs away then you're not trying or looking hard enough.

Obviously babies and retired people aren't working.

Also women, amirite?!?!