Grade Obama

[speed dawg]

If the robots were brown, would Trump deport them?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...ld-pay-taxes-if-they-take-your-job-2017-02-17
If robots are taking people’s jobs, then they should pay taxes too. That’s at least according to billionaire Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft.

“Right now if a human worker does you know, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed,” Gates said in an interview with Quartz. “If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think we would tax the robot at a similar level.”

You already are paying tax on the robot - sales tax when you buy it.

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's like operating a semi truck. You get taxed when you buy it. Then you get a usage tax for every mile that you drive it, in order to pay for the damage it does to roads and infrastructure. Automated technology that destroys our tax base needs to pay for the damages it causes to this country.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Then you get a usage tax for every mile that you drive it, in order to pay for the damage it does to roads and infrastructure. Automated technology that destroys our tax base needs to pay for the damages it causes to this country.

And who do you think ultimately pays that tax? Not the business owners. They just raise the price of whatever product they are selling.

Speaking of taxes....gas is going to get more expensive....

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

As Wendy's Is Proving, Target Has Shown, Higher Minimum Wages Lead To Job Losses

We people who know our economics keep insisting that raising the minimum wage will lead to people employing less labour. That's just what people do when the price of something rises, they buy less of it. The other name for people using less labour is that we will lose jobs, there will be unemployment. A number of theories are put forward for why this won't happen but happen it still does.

Wendy’s Chief Operating Officer, Bob Wright, stated the company experienced a five percent wage inflation and they expect wages to rise at least four percent in 2017. He addressed possible options to accommodate the rising costs of business and inflation, and the unfortunate answer was to eliminate 31 hours of labor each week.

Kiosks are capital expenditure rather than labour. And when you change the relative price of labour to capital then you'll change the decision people make about how much to use of either. This isn't a tough thing to understand despite the manner in which it befuddles all too many

 

[Bible_Belt]

If the "free" market was really what we followed, we'd bring back slavery. What right does the government have to force its own morals on businessmen seeking a profit?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

If the "free" market was really what we followed, we'd bring back slavery.

Moral Outrage Is Self-Serving, Say Psychologists

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.

Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

As Wendy's Is Proving, Target Has Shown, Higher Minimum Wages Lead To Job Losses

You are obsessed with the minimum wage.

We get it already. A few uber greedy CEO's will refuse to make $20 million instead of $25 million, so they will make up the $5 million difference by cutting 10,000 minimum wage jobs.

Because of what a catastrophe that would be, your answer is to preserve the current system of corporate fascism "the free market" by paying people starvation wages, and paying the difference yourself in the form of high taxes because these people WILL get on the dole anyway to make ends meet.

Better that you subsidize the poor than that CEO. Got it.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Minimum wage hikes fail to benefit low-income families

The statistics show that the relationship between being a low-wage worker and a low-income family is very weak. In fact, data from CPS suggests that the majority of poor families with heads of household of prime working age simply don’t work, so a minimum wage has no impact on these families.

In fact, if the federal minimum wage was hiked from $7.25 to $10.10, only 18 percent of resultant increases in income would go to poor families (based on 2010-2014 data), meanwhile 32 percent would go to families with incomes more than three times the poverty line.

Several studies have analyzed changes in the poverty rate between states that increase the minimum wage versus those that don’t. The conclusion these studies reveal is that there is no statistically significant relationship between raising the minimum wage and reducing poverty.

A national survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire found that over 73 percent of American Economic Association (AEA) labor economists believe significant increases in the minimum wage will lead to employment losses and 68 percent believe employers will be deterred from hiring low-skilled workers.

A consensus on minimum wage studies conducted in the 1980’s finds that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment of young and unskilled workers declines by 1-2 percent.

It’s clear that the minimum wage is an ineffective tool at reducing poverty and alleviating income inequality. The benefits of increases in the minimum wage are not targeted toward impoverished families and the costs of minimum wage increases deny youth the skills and experience they need to launch their careers.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Minimum wage hikes fail to benefit low-income families

Is this a transcript from a Board of Directors meeting at a large corporation grasping at straws as they face pressure to unionize?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Is this a transcript from a Board of Directors meeting at a large corporation grasping at straws as they face pressure to unionize?

Jack Salmon is a Washington, D.C.-based researcher focused on federal fiscal policy. Salmon holds an M.A. in political economy with specializations in macroeconomics and comparative economic analysis from King's College London.

 

[speed dawg]

Is this a transcript from a Board of Directors meeting at a large corporation grasping at straws as they face pressure to unionize?

No - it's math.

This country hasn't had a need for unions since the early 20th century. We really don't know how good we have it. We really really don't.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

This country hasn't had a need for unions since the early 20th century. We really don't know how good we have it. We really really don't.

That's not true, and I can I speak from experience. I worked for the two largest telecom carriers in the country - Verizon and AT&T.

AT&T is unionized. I had job security, a raise every year, a training program where I flew all expenses paid to Dallas and stayed at their corporate office for 3 weeks, an outstanding PTO and benefits package, and representation for any discipline - the kind of job with those increasingly rare great benefits the Baby Boomers told us about (that THEY got) when we were growing up and putting ourselves into debt for in school.

At Verizon, I was paid 35% less in salary, had no job security, a less efficient training regimen, and a much more bureacratic atmosphere where morale was in the toilet. Turnover was high. They lost millions of dollars when 40,000 people went on strike. On the 2nd day of training, Verizon did a powerpoint presentation addressing the elephant in the room that was the protests going on over the union. The message was "We're a great company, and we don't think you need a union. Next slide." It lasted all but 20 seconds and wasn't received well. The reputation of this slimy company is no secret. Unions would stop companies like this from outsourcing our jobs, which is a hallmark of the Trump presidency btw.

Now I know that liking your job and feeling secure isn't a right, because in this country if you're not suffering at work you're not making an honest living. We are a very masochistic culture when it comes to work, even when it comes to cashiers and tellers. They stand in one place for 8 hours to "look professional", and develop chronic, long term back and feet problems, whereas in Europe they sit. It's that stupid old "got time to lean, got time to clean" mentality.

And this is where you're wrong about "how good we have it". Do we have it good on the world stage? Sure, with some third world countries like India having rampant poverty, and some 2nd world countries like Spain having upwards of 20% unemployment. But in terms of the first world, we're lagging behind the rest of the world. In Europe there are countries moving to a 4 day work week, their employees are treated humanely (as I explained above), and many countries over there offer 4-6 weeks paid holiday - 2x3 more than we typically do. Saudi fvcking Arabia offers parents better paternity leave than we do.

Now, I'll explain the minimum wage yet again.

The minimum wage does not pay people enough to live on. It just doesn't, and somebody (usually YOU) get to make up the difference. People making $9 in New York can barely afford a bus pass, much less rent. Ignoring totally the moral perspective that I think Christians should have a better grasp on, from a PURELY economic standpoint YOU will subsidize the difference in taxes instead of the large corporation because these people WILL continue to get on welfare. The notion that it eliminates jobs is mostly theory. It could very will be true for little local ma and pa shops just getting by, but it just doesn't hold water for these large corporations making record profits. Cutting those jobs is purely optional and mainly an issue of spite.

I know this forum is a conservative fraternity, and I'm with you guys on the war on white people, Islam, and feminism, but for crying out loud, on this issue you guys are an extreme minority. Approximately 20% of the country is against raising the minimum wage. The "free market" is a euphemism for corporate fascism when you've got people working a full-time job that can barely eat. Even center-right commentators like Bill O'Reilly are on board with a $10 an hour minimum wage. Donald Trump has conceded on the point too.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The Republicans are talking about a Federal 'right-to-work' law, which will be the death blow to all unions. Wisconsin is the model. The law says that unions can't make anyone pay dues, yet requires them to represent all workers, even the ones who don't pay. Union-busting on a national level is now a real possibility.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Union-busting on a national level is now a real possibility.

source

They're all working for the gov unions

 

[speed dawg]

Minimum wage was never meant to support a family on, it was meant for uneducated entry level workers (teens).

Exactly. Anyone with a high school education plus some type of trade skill can command more than minimum wage.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

And anyone with a high school education knows that you're still always going to have low-skilled, unintelligent people. But some of these people have a very hard work ethic, and you need them to take those jobs. Many actually provide a valuable service.

Christians talk about morals a lot. It is morally wrong for someone to be willing to work a full-time job and still fall below the poverty line. It also defeats the purpose of working and discourages people from doing so. The minimum wage has to be there so that these corporations can't implement prison wages of $0.23 an hour, which they would if they could. And no one is asking them to pay them $20 an hour, even $15 is absurd. We're only asking to keep up with the rate of inflation. I'm with the super radical leftist Bill O'Reilly on this one - $10 is about right.

Example:
2005: A guy works at Radioshack making $7.25 an hour. He goes on his lunch break and buys a $1.00 soda from the stand next door.
2017: A guy works at Radioshack making $7.25 an hour. He goes on his lunch break and buys the same soda which now costs $2.00.

His dollar doesn't go as far and as such, he's not even making what he made a decade ago. After a decade of service his wages have actually decreased. And I get it, you guys are OK with this because you think it means a little extra for you, which seems to contradict the Christian theme a little bit, but you still don't understand that at $7 they are forced to get on welfare and you're going to pay the difference. Would one of you please address that point?

Would anyone be okay with prison wages of $0.23 an hour if both parties "agreed" to it because hey..the "free market"!! If they agreed to implement corporal punishment at work for insubordination would you be okay with it so long as it's agreed upon in the "contract"?

 

[Bible_Belt]

but you still don't understand that at $7 they are forced to get on welfare and you're going to pay the difference. Would one of you please address that point?

The Republican answer is to eliminate social services and starve people into working that minimum-wage job.

There's twice as many able-bodied people in this country as there are jobs, and the number of jobs shrinks every year. So the idea that jobless equalls lazy is absurd, which makes it perfect for the Republican agenda. They love dumb ideas, especially ones inspired by hate.

 

[speed dawg]

And anyone with a high school education knows that you're still always going to have low-skilled, unintelligent people. But some of these people have a very hard work ethic, and you need them to take those jobs. Many actually provide a valuable service.

Yes, we do now. We honestly didn't have this issue in the past, at least not to this extent. Social programs subsidized people who normally would have been forced into being more responsible, and made them much less responsible, having more kids, etc. However, that's like a toothpaste/tube deal. The only way to backtrack that is to do it slowly.

Christians talk about morals a lot. It is morally wrong for someone to be willing to work a full-time job and still fall below the poverty line.

Nobody is saying we don't care about these people, and that their issues shouldn't be addressed. There is a short-term issue and long-term issue. I'm more of a long-term thinker - thus, most of my viewpoints and solutions are based on long-term solutions. In the short-term - I'm not sure what else can be done. Maybe we could teach everyone how to farm? Or mandate that a bunch of future-less kids go into the military? At least they'll be provided for that way.

It also defeats the purpose of working and discourages people from doing so. The minimum wage has to be there so that these corporations can't implement prison wages of $0.23 an hour, which they would if they could. And no one is asking them to pay them $20 an hour, even $15 is absurd. We're only asking to keep up with the rate of inflation. I'm with the super radical leftist Bill O'Reilly on this one - $10 is about right.

Example:
2005: A guy works at Radioshack making $7.25 an hour. He goes on his lunch break and buys a $1.00 soda from the stand next door.
2017: A guy works at Radioshack making $7.25 an hour. He goes on his lunch break and buys the same soda which now costs $2.00.

His dollar doesn't go as far and as such, he's not even making what he made a decade ago. After a decade of service his wages have actually decreased. And I get it, you guys are OK with this because you think it means a little extra for you, which seems to contradict the Christian theme a little bit, but you still don't understand that at $7 they are forced to get on welfare and you're going to pay the difference. Would one of you please address that point?

The inflation issue is hurting most everyone, not just the most poor. I am middle class and my expenses/costs are quickly out-racing my income when adjusted for inflation. To me it's not a minimum wage issue. It's just that I can't say that because no one takes my problems seriously, and I understand why. But the math is still there.

Would anyone be okay with prison wages of $0.23 an hour if both parties "agreed" to it because hey..the "free market"!! If they agreed to implement corporal punishment at work for insubordination would you be okay with it so long as it's agreed upon in the "contract"?

There are a lot jobs out there that the free market dictates pay $0.00 an hour. I wanted to be a porn star once in my younger days, the free market yielded me zero returns. Prison guards, specifically, will always be necessary (but not in demand) due to the fact that we have prisoners and the jobs aren't that highly skilled.

 

[speed dawg]

There's twice as many able-bodied people in this country as there are jobs, and the number of jobs shrinks every year. So the idea that jobless equalls lazy is absurd, which makes it perfect for the Republican agenda. They love dumb ideas, especially ones inspired by hate.

You can concoct the strangest takes. For some reason, if some jobless dude refuses to help himself (which is the biggest problem most times), and I recognize his lack of effort thus I refuse to help/enable him, I am FILLED WITH HATE!!111

 

[Bible_Belt]

Prison guards, specifically, will always be necessary (but not in demand) due to the fact that we have prisoners and the jobs aren't that highly skilled.

Federal guards make up to $100k a year and retire at half-pay. The police state is one of our last homegrown industries still remaining.


if some jobless dude refuses to help himself (which is the biggest problem most times), and I recognize his lack of effort thus I refuse to help/enable him, I am FILLED WITH HATE!!111

Oh yeah, the Republicans are the real "Party of Love," aren't they?