Retards are worth $2 an hour

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,824
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,694
    Well, for as much as you want to call it "silly"--you're failing to actually show where it's wrong. In typical fashion, by avoiding any semblance of actually answering direct questions.

    Are posters NOT an indispensable part of GC business model?
    Does GC NOT have legalese whenever a poster signs up detailing their voluntary participation on the site (thus preventing them from later claiming an employment relationship exists)?
    Do you NOT see that a user agreement is similar to an employment agreement?

    I mean, I shouldn't have to explain that to you--but since you have avoided answering those questions, I'm operating under the premise that you either lack the ability to answer them, or don't want to answer them because you don't want to admit the shallowness of your argument.

    A minimum wage increase? Here, I thought that's not what you've been arguing for this entire time. You want a "living wage" (while refusing to define what that is, exactly). Which is it?
  2. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689
    'blah blah blah "in TYPICAL fashion" blah blah blah blah.'

    why don't you go back and read all the replies to this thread, not just mine. you know, where other people advocate a living wage, and then go try your cute little incorrect metaphor on one of them. just to satisfy my curiosity. i still say it's a nutty comparison. for lack of a better adjective.

    a user agreement is not equal to an employment agreement. or any other kind of contract. you know, contracts exist for a huge variety of reasons, none of which is comparable to either a user agreement OR an employment agreement. maybe that's why we have lawyers. because there's not 'one contract fits all'. Lol

    you'll note that when we say 'living wage' that we're arguing for minimum wage increase, right? i'm sorry i wasn't clear. it's easier to 'live' on 10.10 hr than it is 7.25.
  3. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,824
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,694
    Perhaps if you ATTEMPTED to answer questions, then people wouldn't have reason to call you out on avoiding them. On multiple threads.

    It is a nutty comparison. I literally tried to think of the dumbest thing I could compare it to in order to break it down to a level I thought you would roll your eyes and you'd say "that's absurd." Because, you know, that's how most conservatives feel about the nonsense of a "living wage" from people who've never owned a business and show precious little understanding of how to operate one.

    Did I say they were equal? It's kinda hard to have a meaningful discussion when the other party completely ignores what was actually said. I said they are similar.

    They're both contracts. Both define the rights, roles, and responsibilities of the person they apply to (a poster and an employee, respectively). There's a reason for such legal agreements too: to clearly state the terms of the arrangement up-front.

    That way, if one party doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave. No one is forcing me to post here voluntarily. No one is forcing someone to work at a minimum-wage job either. It's a pretty basic concept. The fact it's eluded you this entire time is, frankly, astounding.

    Well, no sh*t. It's easier to "live" on $10.10 an hour than it is for $7.25. It's also easier for a business to operate when they don't have to over-pay for unskilled labor. It's also true that the more you drive up the cost of unskilled labor, the more companies have an incentive to invest their profits in cheaper labor (whether that'd be outsourcing or investing in technology to eliminate certain positions). Sorry you aren't clear on that.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689
    i do answer questions. you don't like my answers.



    'frankly astounding'....
    hahahhahahhaha i love it when you guys get all indignant. it's almost sexy.
    ;)

    look, we've already gone over how there are studies/economists etc saying that a hike in the minimum wage might end up to be a good thing. certainly not the apocalypse you guys tend to think it will be. in fact, we think it would be a good thing and lessen dependence on government programs. see, i've already answered that question a billion* times (don't take that literally. it means 'a lot'...lol)
    you guys don't like that i don't agree with your ''learned opinions''
    shit, i don't think you're 'right' about much of anything anymore. and none of the liberal posters on here do either.
    why is it on me to continue to explain WHY we disagree? just to have you launch into the rightwing outrage word parade with the proper amount of condescension (ex: I literally tried to think of the dumbest thing) while you explain stupid rightwing philosophy, in terms you think ''i'll understand'' cuz god knows you cons are the 'smart ones' (mbwooohahhahahah)..well that is NOT...i repeat...is NOT going to change my mind.

    is it because i'm irretrievably stupid? no. i'm a liberal. we think different than you do. (i mean that it's more of a disconnect than 'men are from mars, women are from venus' by a long shot anymore) and no, just breaking it (your philosophy)down to 'stupid level', doesn't change that. because we're NOT stupid.
    it's simply that i don't agree with you..... we don't agree with you. your philosophy doesn't meet with our approval. lol
    can you understand that? do you understand that we do NOT understand your way of thinking. and it's getting worse on both sides, as we're all finding each other harder to understand all the time. let's be honest here: there is precious little that we agree on anymore. i'm still for 'compromise' to solve the country's problems, but 'compromise' doesn't mean 'total rightwing dominance'
    we got q up there saying that '20k ought to be enough to survive on, most people in other countries are happy to have a cardboard box to live in.' (and he doesn't see anything wrong with that belief...which again....highlights the disconnect between the right and left.
    you call us 'selfish', and to be honest, we feel the same about you.
    oh yeah. 'they're both contracts'.....oh myyyyyy......that's like saying, hey earth and jupiter are both planets. mice and lions are both animals. nissan sentras and cadillac escalades are both vehicles. and you and i? we're both people. but VERY un-alike. not similar at all.
    your metaphor still stinks, it's still not explanatory, the two are dissimilar, completely.
    (that means that 'similar' still doesn't cut it. it's NOT 'similar')

    did i make that clear enough for you?
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  5. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    No kidding. I agree they were not designed to be a "safety net". That is the problem!

    They were designed to redistribute from one group to another. Hence the historical increase in costs (rate now 6.2 times inception on a max taxable around 3 times what inflation would have it be for SS).

    Government has created the mindset that we are owed our three bedroom house and the amenities we deserve at the expense of those who are currently working. Verse having a program that helps people TRULY in "need".

    I absolutely have a fairly literal definition of a "safety net" as I find it unacceptable and immoral for the government to steal from future generations so others can have some extras.

    It stinks. And it is not the fault of anyone but government. I understand the entitlement mentality. We all want free stuff. But these programs are not free. And taking from the future (especially the future who will work their entire lives paycheck to paycheck) to pay for what others think they paid for is wrong.

    We have all/are all/or will paid/paying/pay into the system. But the government has made promises it cannot keep. And it should be disturbing that it cannot keep these promises considering how much more it taxes now.
  6. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    My dad gets his first SS check this month. Turned 62 in December. Go ask him if he thinks he should get less. While not using the extreme like I am to make people think about how blessed we truly are (I understand we must have a slow shift to turn these programs into "safety nets" as many have planned with SS being a part of their future so they may have worked longer etc if they had known it was going to actually be just a "safety net") he absolutely understands the math and is willing to take a cut in benefits.

    By the way both my parents are alive. It was my grandfather who I mentioned earlier.
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    If you think we need to redistribute a persons wealth who is living paycheck to paycheck so you can have more than $20K a year then yes their is a disconnect.

    I do not believe this shift in getting SS to an actual "safety net" should be done overnight. It will most likely take decades to shift it.

    What is your solution for SS? Increase retirement age again (reducing of benefits for those living paycheck to paycheck now)? Raise the max taxable cap again (increase the burden on those working now/it is already happening)?
  8. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,476
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,291
    Why stop at 10.10? Make it $100 an hour.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Your conception of a safety net is still wrong when applied to SS and Mediare as it was never the intention for either to only be used for emergencies. They are insurance policies. But another problem is that it's myopic to believe only govt is to blame for everything without actually acknowledging the role of capitalism and modernization (and indeed, our form of democracy) in creating aspirational values and a need for a minimum floor as a necessary condition in maintaining a robust middle-class, without which the vagaries of unfettered capitalism and rising inequality would lead us to plutocracy (as it is we have some elements of it already). That you consider health care and old age insurance as simply extras rather than being vital qualities for many if not most elderly is another problem.

    What would be immoral is that in a country which has produced the greatest wealth known to mankind that we would want a further concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone else. That somehow, it's just tough luck if the elderly have to sleep in a 10x10 boxes, because you know, people in other countries like their 10x10 boxes.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,824
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,694
    You certainly didn't answer the "yes" or "no" segment I had on there earlier. Probably because you don't like the obvious answer. Which I think everyone understands.

    Yes, laugh with them. Don't try to understand why they're laughing at you!

    And we've already gone over that there are numerous more studies/economists, etc saying that your studies are complete bunk. Certainly, it runs counter to classical economic theory, that much is for certain.

    It's not rightwing philosophy. It's actual economic theory. Supply/demand curve and all that.

    I understand that well-enough. It explains a lot of the differences in opinion. Which is why I tried to break it down simpler into something you might understand (and, evidently, you did). That you failed to extrapolate from there says more about your inability to let go of your obviously deeply-held opinion.


    No, actually. Because if you want to continue down this track, it'd help if you have some type of answer beyond "their different because...well, they just are."

    Fascinating answer, that. Still doesn't explain why. As I've explained before, both contracts set forth the rights, duties, and responsibilities for the party agreeing to it (perhaps if you ever answered the question about why GC has legalese for new posters signing up, you'd actually understand that). They're similar in function, not purpose.

    You do realize that "similar" isn't the same as "identical," right?
  11. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    If they were intended to be insurance policies then I want out. Because the government actuaries have failed! Let me cut my losses! I won't ask for a dime just stop collecting my FICA. The problem is the government needs my FICA or premium to pay for losses or benefits that were promised but not properly Paid for by the beneficiaries. It started at inception.

    And yes this situation is all the governments fault. It is the entity that created the program that promised more than it took from the beneficiaries. It created the dependence it craves in the process.

    We have produced a ton of wealth. But the government is destroying it now with uncontrolled spending.
  12. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    You have not provided a single reasonable economic criticism of the empirical papers written by a variety of authors replicating the earlier results or the meta-analysis that shows that the overall empirical literature has demonstrated no discernible negative effect on the level of employment. You have not cited a single peer-reviewed criticism of the results.

    Classical economic theory is not always correct. There are a number of assumptions to classical economic theory that are not necessarily accurate, such as the idea that humans are economically rational in a variety of contexts in which later research has shown that they are not. The empirical literature does not support your claims. And the only argument you have made is a logically incoherent statement about macro versus micro in which you make predictions about labor leaving the local economy for economies without an increased wage while ignoring the fact that the cited studies do not show that effect.

    You also committed a couple instances of a major logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. The first time is when you claimed that nobody had applied the results. That is a fairly severe logical fallacy, setting aside the fact that it is not true as many markets have increased minimum wages and Kreuger has become a fairly influential policy making economist (which of course does not make him right or wrong, it just makes you wrong). Second, you have attempted to claim majority opinion is on your side without evidence. Provide evidence of this claim or stop using it.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689
    i don't care if you're 'laughing at me'.

    ;)

    there's that condescension we discussed:
    "as i've explained before"
    "Which is why I tried to break it down simpler into something you might understand (and, evidently, you did). That you failed to extrapolate from there says more about your inability to let go of your obviously deeply-held opinion."

    look. you can 'explain' your opinion til the damn cows come home. i'm not gonna change my mind, agree with your 'deeply held' conservative beliefs.
    honestly. you can't understand that?

    your metaphor, for the umpteenth billion time, still sucks. lol

    i'm not 'answering' your 'question' about gc. you need to find a better metaphor, if one exists. now we have you saying ''similar in function, not in purpose''
    those words mean the same thing, you know.
    function
    noun
    1. = purpose, business, job, concern, use, part, office, charge, role, post, operation, situation, activity,exercise, responsibility, task, duty, mission, employment, capacity, province, occupation, raison d'être(French) •

    (putting that in perspective: your sentence would then read ''similar in purpose, not in purpose'' or ''similar in function, not in function'')

    'fascinating'
    :D
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    Jdr let's say you retire with a $30K a year pension. Are you telling me you cannot survive in relative comfort? I am not talking the comfort you may want but comfort. $20K certainly is tougher but again if we want to get to REAL "safety net" numbers we would be talking less than that IMO.

    My whole point is we must reform the "insurance" program that pays out benefits that are unnecessary as it has not collected the proper amount of premiums.

    I wish there was an annuity on the market that provided the returns the government promises. The problem is that company would be bankrupt.

    It is time to means test based on assets and pensions. It should be a slow transition giving the younger generations time to prepare (with the thought the burden or taxes will slowly be reduced) and protecting the older generations that prepared with the idea they would have this revenue stream (their taxes did not pay for).
  15. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,824
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,694
    Because there literally exist too many criticisms to point to. If you want to get started though, the best example would be the book Minimum Wages by David Neumark and William Washer. Their study was larger in scope and studied the effects on the entire economy, not just singular markets (macro, not micro).

    http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/minimum-wages

    Their study concluded:

    See above. Several economists think that Card and Kreuger were dead-wrong in their study and focused on too narrow a sample size. Studies that have approached it from a macro viewpoint have the empirical data to back it up too. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before commenting further.

    Well, I've provided one, though there literally are many others to choose from. Milton Friedman (I'm assuming you need no introduction) even went so far as calling them "discriminatory" against low-income workers because it's a barrier to upward mobility. Here's his latest btw:

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/mi...mum-wage-the-most-anti-black-law-in-the-land/

    You've even acknowledged that classical economic theory supports what I've been saying. There are numerous economists who bear that out in their writings on the subject--which anyone who claims to know anything about economics would acknowledge. I'll admit I haven't cited it--because it really should go without saying. You sitting here pretending that it's a logical fallacy is either you willingly burying your head into the sand to pretend it doesn't exist--or blindly hoping I couldn't-or wouldn't-cite the names and studies of the litany of articles that debunk Card and Kreuger. Either way, it's dishonest.
    • Winner Winner x 2
  16. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,824
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,694
    Cool.

    Oh, absolutely. People wed their ideas more faithfully than their spouses.

    According to you. You still have yet to even attempt to demonstrate why. Hence, your rebuttal sucks. For the upteenth billion time.

    Of course not. Answering it honestly would expose the ridiculousness of your opinion and your objection.

    Why, yes. The function of a user agreement AND an employment agreement is to identify the rights, responsibilities, and roles of the parties consenting to it (that's as dumbed-down as I can possibly make the legalese).

    Their purpose is, obviously, different. An employment contract defines employment. A user agreement defines the terms of use. Or, as you so aptly put it: an employment contract means one is HIRED.

    A robot's purpose for existence is different from it's function, wouldn't you agree? It all depends on how you use it in a sentence. Hopefully, this concludes the grammar lesson for today.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689
    "See above. Several economists think that Card and Kreuger were dead-wrong in their study and focused on too narrow a sample size. Studies that have approached it from a macro viewpoint have the empirical data to back it up too. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before commenting further. "


    so, your economists are 'right' and ours are 'wrong'. gotcha.
  18. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689

    no, you can't redefine words to suit your need for verbosity. sorry about that. but the definition remains the same.

    ftr, a robot's 'purpose' is the same as it's 'function'.
    apparently the english lesson isn't over.
    you can't expect me seriously to understand your metaphors when they don't make any grammatical sense, really.
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    No offense, q, but it hasn't sounded like you wanted reform but abolishment. If you want to talk reform, sure, I am game. The programs as they are now are unsustainable. We've long known this. We've also known that there are some decent--if imperfect--mechanisms that could be put in place--whether it's a means test or changing the tax structure and/or the investment vehicle to make it sustainable long into the future. Not once have I ever uttered that it is perfect as is. And truth be told, I don't know what the best fix would be since there are many different ideas out there, some seem better than others. But I do disagree with characterizations that deterministically tend toward greed and excess when for many it is absolutely not but one of maintaining a decent life when ones income dwindles as a result of old age.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    No offense taken. I have always understood getting these entitlement programs abolished and in the hands of the states as they should be is not reality.

    The federal government has created the dependence it craves. But to think small reform so we can get ours will fix this catastrophe is just not realistic. Real sacrifice is necessary to fix the Greed these programs define. Trust me there are a ton of conservatives who are only open to reform that does not affect their benefits but only the future generations. Entitlement mentality is a bipartisan problem...

Share This Page