Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Mommy, why are poor people poor?Follow

#102 Oct 23 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Remind me not to open a business with gbaji. I'd like to walk away not losing money each day.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#103 Oct 23 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I like how he consistently forgets his own ideology.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#104 Oct 23 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me not to open a business with gbaji. I'd like to walk away not losing money each day.


That's a strange response to my post. Was there something I said about the relative value of labor that you disagree with?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Oct 23 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,359 posts
I think it was basic addition and subtraction, actually.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#106 Oct 23 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Catwho wrote:
I think it was basic addition and subtraction, actually.


That you can't pay fast food workers more than the total sales during their shift minus the total cost of all materials involved in those sales (so electricity, equipment, food, etc), on average? That's not like a shocking thing to say, is it? All I'm doing is calculating net profit (absent labor cost) over a period of time and saying that this is the upper bounds you can pay for labor.

Is there someone who thinks that's wrong? I mean, if it costs you $5 for materials to run your lemonaid stand for 5 hours, and you sell $15 of lemonaid during that time period, then your profit rate is $2/hour. If you were to hire someone to sell lemonaid for you, that would be the maximum rate you could pay them (or yourself in this case). This should not be an alien concept, but it's shocking how many people will argue that it's unfair that the lemonaid stand worker doesn't get paid as much as the guy who repairs your car. Well, if people were willing to pay 5 times as much for a glass of lemonaid at a stand on the side of the road, then you could pay your workers more. But that's the point I'm making. The value of labor is a function of the value of the product of that labor to consumers.

We can complain that this is unfair, but it's really not. As long as consumers are free to choose whether a given good or service is worth the cost being asked, then the labor to produce those goods/services will be tied to that factor. Put another way, in order to make labor not valued that way would require removing the freedom of purchasers to choose whether to buy things at a given price (ie: no free market). You can't change one without changing the other, but some continue to think that they can. I'm just trying to point out the uselessness of trying to do that unless one is really arguing against a free market entirely.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2013 3:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Oct 23 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
I'm confused. Why would anyone pay an unskilled factory worker more than they had to in the first place? That's money that could be better invested elsewhere, right?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#108 Oct 23 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
cost of all materials involved in those sales (so electricity, equipment, food, etc), on average?
That's what was missing first time around. Your previous wording made it seem like you were only considering product cost and labour.

SPG wrote:
I'm confused. Why would anyone pay an unskilled factory worker more than they had to in the first place? That's money that could be better invested elsewhere, right?
Unions. And when there is no union, fear of a union.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2013 10:03pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 Oct 23 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it increases the relative value of the jobs remaining *and* creates the potential for greater total productivity from the market itself (meaning a bigger total pie). What makes the factory workers button pushing more valuable than the fast food workers button pushing is precisely the fact that automation means he's creating more productive output with that button push. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing.

The argument you're making is akin to saying that tools destroy jobs. If only everyone harvested wheat by hand rather than using some kind of tool, we'd be able to employ so much more of our people harvesting wheat, right? And if we didn't replace those hand tools with automated tractors, we'd save yet more jobs. It's bad logic. In each case, we make the labor we use more efficient, which allows the entire economy to generate more productive output. The idea that this is automatically wrong because it destroys jobs is absurd and somewhat pointless. Jobs will be created to meet the demands of the labor market. The historical record on this is pretty hard to deny.


In what dream world do you live in. The reason Auto makers make so much money is because they spent the better part of 70 years fighting for competitive wages vs profits of the industry. The wages dictate the cost of the item. You are quite literally putting the cart before the horse. If Labor was reflected in terms of production value then labor rates would have scaled appropriately with the rise of profits. Yet after a decade of sh*t economics in the US and Canada NA income rates have remained mostly stagnant on the whole. At least in comparison with the massive rise in Profits.

(sorry I don't know how to post images anymore)
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-04%20at%2012.35.48%20PM.png

(from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/corporate-profits-are-eating-the-economy/273687/)

But of course if Productivity was truly the essence of Labor and the Profits dictatory of wages, why would temporary labor be rampant across North America? Why would 1 year contract positions at marked down Union wages be the way of the future. If Labor and Wages we so harmonized with Production and Profits, in what world would hiring temporary staff at 70% starting wages fit into the equation. Certainly companies don't feel that they aren't making enough, after all profits are the highest they have ever been, certainly they don't feel they aren't producing enough after all production levels of everything are at the highest they have ever been. Or maybe they just want to make more money and pay less for the production. After all, more money in the hands of people who know how to use it better is more important for the economy. Having record profits is clearly the answer to unemployment, underemployment, poverty, and homlessness. Having record profits has clearly helped work people of social assistance and other government welfare programs, having record profits has clearly led to a sustainable workforce and national economic stability...Oh wait none of these things is true even with Corporate profits at all time **** the real world sucks.

So I wonder, at what point does the fantasy economist that runs your fairy tale world come and say, ok guys we are making Twice as much as we spend on labor...its time we increase wages to give these hard workers a fair cut of the pie, also we are going to open 100's of new factories and hire some of these unemployed people, lets also start a community building project that helps ween people off assistance, after all gentlemen we are swimming in the most profits in the history of mankind. I would love to live in your fictional world of economic growths and equal wages. Especially so I could believe in your absurd notion that Profits and Productivity determine Labor and Wages.

In the real world jobs are being lost to automation, in the real world wages do not reflect the profits nor production, in the real world people are taking jobs at half the pay rate of others just so they can live to work. In the real world companies are at an all time high in production and profits, yet, the average pay in the US and Canada hasn't even kept up with the average Cost of living increase in the last decade.

But hey simple math could tell you that.



Edited, Oct 23rd 2013 8:11pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#110 Oct 23 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm confused. Why would anyone pay an unskilled factory worker more than they had to in the first place? That's money that could be better invested elsewhere, right?


The question I was answering was why a button pusher on a factory floor gets paid more than a button pusher at a fast food restaurant (service industry in general). It's a given in the question that the factory worker *is* paid more, even if he's not considered more skilled, or the work considered any more difficult. So your question is tangential at best.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Oct 23 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a given in the question that the factory worker *is* paid more, even if he's not considered more skilled, or the work considered any more difficult.
Ahh gotya, that's the part I missed then.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#112 Oct 23 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm confused. Why would anyone pay an unskilled factory worker more than they had to in the first place? That's money that could be better invested elsewhere, right?


The question I was answering was why a button pusher on a factory floor gets paid more than a button pusher at a fast food restaurant (service industry in general). It's a given in the question that the factory worker *is* paid more, even if he's not considered more skilled, or the work considered any more difficult. So your question is tangential at best.


My question wasn't about pay though (and that's what you quoted when you posted), it was about how society views the importance of the job and how skilled the person is viewed. Pay may be a factor there, but my comment wasn't about pay. Someone looks at a burger flipper working 40 hours a week and thinks "loser". Someone looks at a button pusher on a factory floor working 40 hours a week and thinks"productive member of society".

And as far as pay... the difference isn't there if you are a non union shop. Our button pushers make between 9 and 13 dollars an hour based on whether or not they are temps and their seniority .

As long as society doesn't view these services and the people providing them as important, they won't be willing to pay more for them, and the people providing these services won't be able to earn more for their work.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#113 Oct 23 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
And to simply this even more so you can maybe understand.

You pay someone 1$hour to produce a product he can make 1 of an hour.
Your product sells competitively at 10$
Your cost of upkeep is 1$ per Shift.
Your Material is 3$ per part



Money in 80$ (8 parts at 10$EA)
Money out 33$ (24$ Mars + 8$ Wages + 1$ Operating)
47$ Profit per shift.

Now you replace the person with a robot that costs an additional dollar per shift to operate, but produces 1 part more an hour.


Suddenly you have
Money in 90$ (9 Parts @ 10$Ea)
Money out 29$ (27Mats+2Operation)
61$ Profit

In your fictional world.

Company keeps worker because Humans are awesome. They decide instead of getting a robot they want to keep Bob and opt to give him 1$ more over the 8 hour period. This dollar would have run the robot but they feel their production is already stable and doesn't warrant the extra part per shift.

Money In 80$
Money Out 34$ (24Mats+1OP+9Wages)

Profit 46$


Another Scenario, Everything else remains the same as in part 1 except instead of increasing wages or getting robots, the company opts to take 1$ off the cost of their products at the consumer level.

Money In. 72$
Money Out 33$
Profit 39$

Now lets think real hard about which one actually happens in society. Or at least which one the data supports occurring in society.

Also there is an alternative.

Fire bob and hire a temprorary contract worker he is desperate for a job and agrees to take 50% of what Bob used to make. With Jim the company now makes the same amount of stuff, but they now make 51$ in profit each shift. They see the success of this and employ it across their whole company, now with 100 people working at half the cost per shift they see they have 510$ a shift in profits...and they were glad (This is currently the most popular type of employment in North American manufacturing and nearly 40% of it is being used by foreign workers on Visas)

Edited, Oct 23rd 2013 8:29pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 23rd 2013 8:34pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#114 Oct 23 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
In what dream world do you live in.


A world in which the percentage of our population required to grow sufficient food to feed our population is 1/20th of what it was a century ago, and yet we don't have 95% unemployment. Clearly the market actually does find new things for labor freed up via automation to do. Is that really a question?

Quote:
The reason Auto makers make so much money is because they spent the better part of 70 years fighting for competitive wages vs profits of the industry. The wages dictate the cost of the item. You are quite literally putting the cart before the horse.


Both forces are in play. If you increase the cost of labor, you must increase the cost of the goods produced by that labor. That is because the total cost to produce a good cannot be greater than the price you sell the good for. You're saying the same thing I am.

Quote:
If Labor was reflected in terms of production value then labor rates would have scaled appropriately with the rise of profits.


False. I said that the upper bounds of labor value is a function of the market value of the goods and services generated by that labor. I said nothing at all about how that value differential is divided between profit and labor costs.

Quote:
Yet after a decade of sh*t economics in the US and Canada NA income rates have remained mostly stagnant on the whole. At least in comparison with the massive rise in Profits.


Which has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.


Quote:
But of course if Productivity was truly the essence of Labor and the Profits dictatory of wages, why would temporary labor be rampant across North America? Why would 1 year contract positions at marked down Union wages be the way of the future. If Labor and Wages we so harmonized with Production and Profits, in what world would hiring temporary staff at 70% starting wages fit into the equation. Certainly companies don't feel that they aren't making enough, after all profits are the highest they have ever been, certainly they don't feel they aren't producing enough after all production levels of everything are at the highest they have ever been. Or maybe they just want to make more money and pay less for the production. After all, more money in the hands of people who know how to use it better is more important for the economy. Having record profits is clearly the answer to unemployment, underemployment, poverty, and homlessness. Having record profits has clearly helped work people of social assistance and other government welfare programs, having record profits has clearly led to a sustainable workforce and national economic stability...Oh wait none of these things is true even with Corporate profits at all time **** the real world sucks.


That's a lot of complaining about stuff I wasn't talking about. I was answering the question of why a button pusher in a service job (like fast food) gets paid less than a button pusher on a factory floor, even if both jobs are similarly demanding in terms of skill/difficulty.

That's it. You're trying to fly before you've learned to crawl. Start by understanding the basic concepts first, then we can move on to more complex ideas.

Quote:
So I wonder, at what point does the fantasy economist that runs your fairy tale world come and say, ok guys we are making Twice as much as we spend on labor...its time we increase wages to give these hard workers a fair cut of the pie, also we are going to open 100's of new factories and hire some of these unemployed people, lets also start a community building project that helps ween people off assistance, after all gentlemen we are swimming in the most profits in the history of mankind. I would love to live in your fictional world of economic growths and equal wages. Especially so I could believe in your absurd notion that Profits and Productivity determine Labor and Wages.


I have never argued this. Ever. You're creating false conditions and getting way ahead of the issue at hand.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever walked into a store, looked at an item on the shelf and then decided that you can afford to pay twice as much as the asking price, so you just give that money to the store? No? That's what's wrong with your question. No one does that. It's not about setting arbitrary "fair" prices for things. It's always about competing forces.

What force prevents the store from charging you $1000 for a loaf of bread? If you can answer that question, then you can answer the one you asked (or the one you should have asked).

Quote:
In the real world jobs are being lost to automation, in the real world wages do not reflect the profits nor production, in the real world people are taking jobs at half the pay rate of others just so they can live to work. In the real world companies are at an all time high in production and profits, yet, the average pay in the US and Canada hasn't even kept up with the average Cost of living increase in the last decade.


Missing the forest for the trees.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Oct 23 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

In your fictional world.

Company keeps worker because Humans are awesome...


Someone has to build, maintain, and operate the robots. And since the robots generate greater profit for the company, the value of the labor involved in doing those things is greater than the value of the labor doing what the robot is now doing. And since it requires fewer people to operate the robots relative to the number of parts built, more people can be employed operating more robots and thus building even more parts (and parts of different kinds). Thus, the cost of the end goods gets cheaper and more available over time.

It's not a fictional world I'm talking about. As I said, if your argument was true, then when we switched from farming by hand to using automated equipment allowing one person to harvest a field that would have required hundreds of people before, all of those people would be languishing in poverty and starvation. And yet, amazingly enough, they aren't.

The market will find work for labor.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Oct 23 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
You guys are arguing pay rates with a guy who fought tooth and nail to say waitresses made as much as Brigadier Generals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Oct 23 2013 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You guys are arguing pay rates with a guy who fought tooth and nail to say waitresses made as much as Brigadier Generals.


Why not go all the way and say it was fast food workers? Or the guy who mows my lawn? I mean, if you're just going to make stuff up, may as well really make it up!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Oct 23 2013 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:

In your fictional world.

Company keeps worker because Humans are awesome...


Someone has to build, maintain, and operate the robots. And since the robots generate greater profit for the company, the value of the labor involved in doing those things is greater than the value of the labor doing what the robot is now doing. And since it requires fewer people to operate the robots relative to the number of parts built, more people can be employed operating more robots and thus building even more parts (and parts of different kinds). Thus, the cost of the end goods gets cheaper and more available over time.

It's not a fictional world I'm talking about. As I said, if your argument was true, then when we switched from farming by hand to using automated equipment allowing one person to harvest a field that would have required hundreds of people before, all of those people would be languishing in poverty and starvation. And yet, amazingly enough, they aren't.

The market will find work for labor.


There are no numbers that support your claim though. Average income has not risen in proportion to perceived "Higher Value" jobs. Do I make more than a guy pushing a button, In fact I do. I make 10$ more an hour because I went to school and got a piece of paper that says I know what I am I doing. But I know half a dozen guys who now make 15 dollars less than they used to because their jobs were replaced by Robots. So lets see I make 80$ more in a day, and one of those guys now makes 120$ less. Over the 6 of my friends thats a cool $720 or about a difference of 540 bucks. Now I know this affected 6 people because I installed the Robot that replaced them on the line. A line of 9 is down to 3 because we only need 1 person to load parts and push a button instead of 2 guys welding and 1 guy handling parts.

So yes higher value jobs are being added, but this in no way supports a "non-deterioration" of the Average wealth. In fact it hurts the whole town. Those 6 guys are joined by about 34 others, some who went to school, some are unemployed, most took part time jobs at minimum wage because hey, they had to put food on the table for their kids when the EI ran out. So now there are ~30 People who used to make Over 50K a year (~48K is the average in Canada) and now making under 30K/yr. 7 have lost their houses, had to sell them cause they couldn't handle the mortgage, ever rising bills, and of course feed their families. I can only imagine how Bowling Green was impacted when GM started laying people off. I can only imagine how it fell when entire truck lines were moved out of the country for cheaper labor and operation cost, especially since they had to add in the cost of health care into that ball of necessities we consider mandatory for basic life.

Of course its cool because I am making 80$ more than everyone else because I monitor the Robots. So why does it matter than hundreds of thousands of dollars has left my city. Well we lost 3 resturants, my home value has decline by 12%, we have lost 1 movie plaza, we have lost an ice cream shop, a Blockbuster...then again they went out of business (something about being able to rent thousands of movies from your couch or something...) Lots of other stuff has closed, we have seen many mom and pop shops shut down because they don't have the loyal customer base they once did. Unemployment here is just about 11%, but that doesn't include the thousands who probably don't bother saying anything, then again I am sure many work under the table too. The income of the town has declined, this year it couldn't pay its police service and a needed hospital extension...thankfully the Government of Ontario helped a bit, but then again Ontario as a whole has seen hundreds of billions sapped from its economy over 9% unemployment and for the first time in the History of Canada is now a have not province.

I mean its not like its a big deal or anything I mean those things are probably all unrelated right, I am sure the 80Dollars more a day I make is actually covering the losses oh hundreds of Billions in consumer incomes. After all companies are still making record profits so my $80 must be doing just fine. I mean I could be over thinking it and am sure that once the US economy comes roaring back to life all these jobs that robots now hold will be replaced some where in the economy, because hey I got 80 bucks and that can totally pay for one hour work for the staff who made my Quarter Pounder meal tonight.

Fantasy land economics were proven wrong in the 80's they were shown to be wrong again in the 00's and now no one has any money left to do anything to rectify the situation, except for those record setting profiteers in corporations who somehow have swallowed up several trillion in profits and put it somewhere..
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#119 Oct 23 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not go all the way and say it was fast food workers? Or the guy who mows my lawn? I mean, if you're just going to make stuff up,
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Come on now, who really wants to leave their child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes less money than a **** waitress?
Yeah. Just like this.

The correct statement would be to ask if you'd want to leave your child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes slightly less money than a senior engineer, or someone in middle management, or a Brigadier General. Because the median pay for public school teachers is about the same as the starting pay scale for those other jobs.
Totally made up. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Oct 24 2013 at 2:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
I'm also reminded on how he argued the impossibility of paying waiters more money without the collapse of your business. You know, as opposed to cutting money in other places.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#121 Oct 24 2013 at 4:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
That's actually valid, depending on circumstances. Most restaurants run very thin margins and profits are solely based on volume. High end restaurants can be an exception to that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#122 Oct 24 2013 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,900 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why not go all the way and say it was fast food workers? Or the guy who mows my lawn? I mean, if you're just going to make stuff up,
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Come on now, who really wants to leave their child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes less money than a **** waitress?
Yeah. Just like this.

The correct statement would be to ask if you'd want to leave your child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes slightly less money than a senior engineer, or someone in middle management, or a Brigadier General. Because the median pay for public school teachers is about the same as the starting pay scale for those other jobs.
Totally made up. Smiley: laugh
I'm sure on average, **** waitresses make more money than day care providers.

When dissing occupations that you deem lowly, your superior facade is dulled by bad facts.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#123 Oct 24 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm sure on average, **** waitresses make more money than day care providers.
Or the average stay at home mom. No idea where that quote got dug up from, but I'm pretty sure my wife wants to kick someone in the nuts right now.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#124 Oct 24 2013 at 9:51 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I'm sure on average, **** waitresses make more money than day care providers.
Or the average stay at home mom. No idea where that quote got dug up from, but I'm pretty sure my wife wants to kick someone in the nuts right now.


She would be looking for Gibberish Boy.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#125 Oct 24 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,900 posts
I think I misread something. However, seeing as how my day is kind of sucking alot, addressing this little inconsequential **** up on my part might prove helpful in keeping my attitude muted and my mouth shut here in the office. Smiley: wink

Its not friday yet is it?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#126 Oct 24 2013 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
It is somewhere. Maybe we should all pretend we live in New Zealand for a while, at least until Sunday?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#127 Oct 24 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,900 posts
My magazine would probably get sent there.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#128 Oct 24 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Maybe you could get someone there to forward your mail. If it's an interesting magazine they may not mind, assuming you let them read it too of course.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#129 Oct 24 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Adding the original claim for completeness sake:

lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You guys are arguing pay rates with a guy who fought tooth and nail to say waitresses made as much as Brigadier Generals.


Why not go all the way and say it was fast food workers? Or the guy who mows my lawn? I mean, if you're just going to make stuff up, may as well really make it up!

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Come on now, who really wants to leave their child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes less money than a **** waitress?
Yeah. Just like this.

The correct statement would be to ask if you'd want to leave your child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes slightly less money than a senior engineer, or someone in middle management, or a Brigadier General. Because the median pay for public school teachers is about the same as the starting pay scale for those other jobs.
Totally made up. Smiley: laugh


Yes. Made up.

I was comparing the median pay for public school teachers to the starting pay scale for a list of jobs, one of which was Brigadier General. At no point did I *ever* say that a waitress made as much as a General. That's some serious reading fail on your part.

Edited, Oct 24th 2013 2:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Oct 24 2013 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not a fictional world I'm talking about. As I said, if your argument was true, then when we switched from farming by hand to using automated equipment allowing one person to harvest a field that would have required hundreds of people before, all of those people would be languishing in poverty and starvation. And yet, amazingly enough, they aren't.

The market will find work for labor.


There are no numbers that support your claim though.


Of course there are. You even provided one yourself:

Quote:
Unemployment here is just about 11%...


If the market forces I'm talking about did not exist, unemployment would be at over 90% right now due to all the automation we've done over the last century. Clearly, despite massive implementation of automation on our industrial processes, we still manage to find a way to employe most of the people who are looking for work.

You're looking at immediate short term events and missing the larger long term trend that I'm talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Oct 24 2013 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the market forces I'm talking about did not exist, unemployment would be at over 90% right now due to all the automation we've done over the last century. Clearly, despite massive implementation of automation on our industrial processes, we still manage to find a way to employe most of the people who are looking for work.


Quote:
Back in 1930, Keynes predicted that the working week would be drastically cut, to perhaps 15 hours a week, with people choosing to have far more leisure as their material needs were satisfied. The world was then gripped by a dreadful slump but in the long run Keynes was sure mankind was solving its economic problems. Within a hundred years, Keynes predicted, living standards in "progressive countries" would be between four and eight times higher and this would leave people far more time to enjoy the good things in life.


To be honest I bet we could all work 15 hours a week if we were content to live as we did in a 1930's society at this point. People do seem far more attached to their stuff than to their leisure time.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#132 Oct 24 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was comparing the median pay for public school teachers to the starting pay scale for a list of jobs, one of which was Brigadier General.
You tried to pass off $70k as "slightly less" than $110k for half a page until it finally sunk in that the comparison was so wrong that even you couldn't spin it.
gbaji wrote:
That's some serious reading fail on your part.
Which is a funny accusation, considering the whole thing started with your inability to read a pretty simple chart. Not that anyone is going to be surprised with your revisionist history.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Oct 24 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At no point did I *ever* say that a waitress made as much as a General. That's some serious reading fail on your part.

Well, you countered the claim that you'd be leaving your kid with someone who made waitress money by saying they also made B. General (and senior engineer) money.

If "A" Teacher = "B" Waitress and "A" Teacher" = "C" General then "B" = "C".

Math! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Oct 24 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not a fictional world I'm talking about. As I said, if your argument was true, then when we switched from farming by hand to using automated equipment allowing one person to harvest a field that would have required hundreds of people before, all of those people would be languishing in poverty and starvation. And yet, amazingly enough, they aren't.

The market will find work for labor.


There are no numbers that support your claim though.


Of course there are. You even provided one yourself:

Quote:
Unemployment here is just about 11%...


If the market forces I'm talking about did not exist, unemployment would be at over 90% right now due to all the automation we've done over the last century. Clearly, despite massive implementation of automation on our industrial processes, we still manage to find a way to employe most of the people who are looking for work.

You're looking at immediate short term events and missing the larger long term trend that I'm talking about.



The larger trend you are talking about is not evidenced anywhere in our society though. You cherry pick number one a time and act as if they alone mean something or represent something that does not exist. Just because unemployment is not 90% doesn't mean that present day employment is covering costs associated with life. Simply looking at the stark rise in poverty, looking at the decline of the SIZE of the middle class, and the vacuum of money from the bottom earners to the top earner can tell you that employment is not providing the income required to sustain an average life style. Let alone a minimal lifestyle, as seen by the rampant sub standard of living people have based on wealth.

When some one asks Mommy, are are poor people poor?

The answer is because As of today jobs available do not pay enough to match standard of living.

You keep bringing up the old days, like it is some indicator of how our society has changed. It certainly has become much more robust, and you can pretty much get anything you could ever want. Is that truly a positive, here are just some basic numbers to reflect on in regards to personal wealth, and sustainability in the system.

In 1950, a gallon of gasoline cost about 27 cents.
In 2012, a gallon of gasoline costs $3.69.
In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.
In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men were employed.
In 2012, less than 65 percent of all men are employed.
In 1950, the average duration of unemployment was about 12 weeks.
In 2012, the average duration of unemployment is about 40 weeks.
In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.
In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.

All of these factors play on ones ability to afford life. Frankly in the US there is a serious problem. When the Average rate at a Burger Hut (since you like hitting that employment sector) brings in about 15K a year. Meanwhile all the eggheads in the US consider the minimal amount a person can reliably live is @ nearly double that near 27K year. Minimum hourly wages in the US on average are nearly 50% of what they should be in order to sustain a minimalist life style, This means bills paid, this mean house paid, food, clothes, and travel WITHOUT Government assistance.

Poverty exists solely because it is designed to exist. If everyone had money than how could we differentiate those who "work hard" for the dredges of society who are free loading along. I am sure the some 300K Fast Food worker who agreed to strike an march on Washington to force minimums of 15$ in that industry are dredges, It certainly can't be because they in fact don't make enough money to afford the basic needs of life. More over it is even more impressive that these fast food workers are taking up the same torch from the 60's when thousands of Americans marched on Washington demanding an increase to 2$ minimum wage. Even more impressive is that the actual value of that 15$ people seek, is the same value as the 2$ people sought 50 years ago.

Your problem is you don't know how to quantify facts, and numbers into an articulate argument. You have bounced and grasped on to several different issues in an attempt to point out the system is fine the system is fine. Which is what we call living in a fantasy land.

Back to your fast food worker analogy Mcdonalds makes 20 cents profit on every dollar it sells after taxes and pay. For an average 5 dollar meal this means McD's makes the company 1$. If McD's were to give all their employees 15$ an hour it would cost the company 8 Billion more a year, Which would eat into their 8.9B of recorded profits last year. It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to see the disparity between McD's corporate earnings and that of the employees. Even if McD's decided to pay everyone 15$, the company would still bring in 900M profit based on last years numbers. Not only that but that is a further 8B being put directly into the economy, not being held to rain gracious bonuses on CEO's COO's and dividends to stock holders. Even if it wasn't a direct raise and a profit sharing program they still have the financial capacity to increase the amount earned by their employees each year, without taking a trip to the red in the year end books. This also all happens without increasing the prices of the product.

Meanwhile the average american is left with less than 1$ earned per our they work. In comparison this would be like McDonalds paying you 20 cents to eat their food. Cost of living has increased some 23% over the last decade alone, wages have increased barely 10% across the board. Again a degree in math is not required to see how this is an unsustainable approach to health economy.

It gets better though, despite jobs in our economy disappearing outright due to automation, despite the large inequality in wealth distribution, and despite the rapid deterioration of the base Dollar value, at the end of the day the entire US market slows down, the entire system becomes a welfare system. Your government can not even fund itself with its own money anymore, it depends on other nations buying its money in order to simply facilitate the nation, the most Ironic thing of all is that the single largest bailouts in history didn't go to the 50% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, it didn't go to the some 27% of Americans who depend on Government subsidy to just get by. It went to the very people who gambled the profits of corporations and citizens down the drain.

Not only do you have all time record profits, and all time record % of population dependent on some form of Government assistance, you have the entire system being weighed down by a colossal amount of debt. It is rotting the entirety of the system. Could you imagine how many folks would not have to use government assistance if pay scaling was done based on profits and not an arbitrary valuation of a position. Could you imagine how much less money the government would need to spend if even half of the 50% of the nation who require some assistance were able to support themselves through their employment. Could you imagine the growth of industry and profits if everyone in the US had more money spend.

But ya its great that Corporate America is making twice the GDP of the US right now, up from near parity just over a decade ago, Its great that your financial system didn't collapse, despite the entire population of your nation shouldering the largest held debt in the history of the planet.

If you want to cherry pick some good numbers, go take a peak at Cost of living vs Average wages. That is about the most accurate depiction of "Why People are Poor" just because an unemployment rate isn't 90% doesn't mean the 79% of people who are employed are all making enough money for a standard of living. Average cost of living in the US is currently around 13.76/hr at full time hours. Nearly double the mean minimum wage in the US.

Its not hard math Gbaji.

Capitalism is dying because it is designed to die, once the money leaves the majority it degrades. It is a system that is designed to move money to as few hands as possible. In the case of the US what you have is Corporate Fascism taking root. The Corporate buying power of the US is now greater than the buying power of the Government that oversees it, and the people who build it.

But its ok in some years time we will be having Wealth Equality arguments all over the Western world, much like we had Social Equality marches back in the 30's 40's and in the 50's and 60's in the US. Corporations will no longer be able to horde the money and lord over the people, Profit sharing will become a new standard in enterprise, and it will be because of one thing and one thing only....People are poor because they don't make enough money working. Thats it. Simple as math gets.



Moreover for a system that boasts fairness and equality based on effort and work ethic, It is a hard system to sell when the VAST majority of the people who are in the 50% of unemployed/underemployed, are minorities whose parents and grandparents were still fighting for equal rights, while White America was basking in the peak of Capitalism and the American dream. Pretty hard to call a system fair when roughly 3/4 of the population was given a big hand up because their skin color wasn't black or brown.

Edited, Oct 24th 2013 7:10pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#135 Oct 24 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's actually valid, depending on circumstances. Most restaurants run very thin margins and profits are solely based on volume. High end restaurants can be an exception to that.


Not really, only places that don't know how to watch their food cost. Waste is the biggest problem you have worry about in a restaurant after not giving people mud ****. This comes in the way of making sure you product isn't going in the guts of the employees and their friends and there is little over prep, over ordering that could spoil before being sold.

After that would be poor menu planning with to many items or to many high cost low profit items. If paying the wait staff more was enough to sink your place then there were bigger problems to start. Really the ones that are on thin margins are open by people that have no idea how to run one or they are to proud to admit the problem is with their menus.

Now if a place has two many wait staff then that is a problem and it could sink them if paid more but that is a break down of management not being more selective with highers,you know the place with all the pretty girls with crap service that kind of thing were they think more is better.


____________________________
.
#136 Oct 24 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Not really, only places that don't know how to watch their food cost.
Right, so 90% of restaurant operators. There's a reason restaurants open and close at alarming rates. Because it's no where near as simple or easy as you're making it out to be. It's slim margins with little room for error.

Did you know the typical restaurant location goes through 5 variations before it's finally successful? And that's not because someone finally did the right thing with it, it's because after buying the location and equipment at $0.50 on the $1.00 5 times, your overhead costs are finally down to a point where you can make a profit.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#137 Oct 24 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At no point did I *ever* say that a waitress made as much as a General. That's some serious reading fail on your part.

Well, you countered the claim that you'd be leaving your kid with someone who made waitress money by saying they also made B. General (and senior engineer) money.


Not "also". "instead of". Someone said that a teacher made slightly less than a waitress. I said that this was incorrect, and provided an alternative list of professions which the median public school teachers salary was "slightly less than".

I was specifically contrasting the salary of a waitress and that of the list I provided Joph.

Quote:
If "A" Teacher = "B" Waitress and "A" Teacher" = "C" General then "B" = "C".


Except that what I actually said was that a A != B, and that instead A = C.

Quote:
Math! Smiley: schooled


Logic!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Oct 24 2013 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I was specifically contrasting the salary of a waitress and that of the list I provided Joph.

Whatever makes you feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#139 Oct 24 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
**
580 posts
90% are retards that run their own restaurant into the ground with poor management and even worse highering practices. By no means what I'm saying is simple, it is the hardest things a owner has to do. Pride is a **** and that alone has ruin more places then anything. That item on the menu that is 1 or 2% profit might be one of the greatest things a chef has ever came up with but its a vampire on the rest of the menu. The owner chefs are the worst to admit they have crappy menus since their pride gets in the way. The food could be great but they have little profit from it. That is the thin margins your talking about but it is a self imposed thin margin. Really balancing your menu is the the hardest thing for a chef. Then you have staff that might be robbing you blind or throwing out your profits while your not there to watch them. Doesn't matter how cheap you pick the place up for is no one is coming in to spend money or the money is going out the back door at the end of the night then its all wasted.

Product waste is just as important. Every were you eat that has a soup of the day or runs daily specials are doing so cause the items that went into them are left overs from the day before given new life as something else. When I first started cooking I was told by my executive chef that cooking was a lot like alchemy, you were turning sh*t into gold. What he meant was if something was nearing the end of it's self life you burned it up on the special or if you had shrimp, lobster(some places just give you the claw and tail meat and keep the knuckles) on the menu you took the shells and made a stock with them and used it as a base for the soup. Tomato, celery, onion scraps along with beef bone and chicken bones(shouldn't have to say it but stuff that didn't go out to the guest) went into the stocks so you didn't have to order as much to make the stocks and nothing was wasted. The butter sauce from the day before went into the mashed potatoes so you didn't use as much butter so on.

There are a couple places around here were I live that have always been restaurants and they keep failing not because the locations are bad both are on highly traveled main paths though town with easy access but the food they served was either bad or they were bought by people that have little to no idea how to run it. They think like you in your last post that they can pick it up for .50 cents on the dollar and then let it ride but if it still looks like the old place then people will stay away from it like the old place. If the dinning room looks worse then a applebees then you might as well hang it up people don't like eating in places that have crappy interiors. It sends the message that if you don't care how your front of the house looks then the back of house must be worse.

Edited, Oct 24th 2013 9:30pm by RavennofTitan
____________________________
.
#140 Oct 24 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

In 1950, a gallon of gasoline cost about 27 cents.
In 2012, a gallon of gasoline costs $3.69.
In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.
In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men were employed.
In 2012, less than 65 percent of all men are employed.
In 1950, the average duration of unemployment was about 12 weeks.
In 2012, the average duration of unemployment is about 40 weeks.
In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.
In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.


In 1950 the median income for males was $2,570. Today it's over $30k. To put it in perspective, the 1950 income when adjusted for inflation is equivalent to about $17k in today's money. Put another way, the median income is roughly double today in real purchasing power, compared to what it was in 1950.

My point is just tossing out a list of statistics doesn't really tell us the whole story.


Quote:
Poverty exists solely because it is designed to exist.


That is such a meaningless statement. Designed by whom? For what purpose? Seriously?


Quote:
Your problem is you don't know how to quantify facts, and numbers into an articulate argument.


That's funny coming from someone who just rattled off a list of facts and then failed to make any sort point with them.

Quote:
You have bounced and grasped on to several different issues in an attempt to point out the system is fine the system is fine. Which is what we call living in a fantasy land.


Fantasy land is selectively highlighting single statistics while ignoring the larger whole. You're trying to blame "poverty" on something which has existed all along, while failing to explain why it isn't so much worse than it really is. I mean, if we were to take you at your word, we should all be starving to death. Yet, amazingly, people manage to find work. And they manage to feed their families. And lots of people manage to make good lives for themselves, despite all these terrible economic forces at work.

There's a point at which one ought to maybe look at that and conclude that it's not as absolute as you're making it out to be. There must be some forces that prevent disaster from occurring, because disaster has not yet occurred. Shocking, I know.


Quote:
If you want to cherry pick some good numbers, go take a peak at Cost of living vs Average wages. That is about the most accurate depiction of "Why People are Poor" just because an unemployment rate isn't 90% doesn't mean the 79% of people who are employed are all making enough money for a standard of living. Average cost of living in the US is currently around 13.76/hr at full time hours. Nearly double the mean minimum wage in the US.

Its not hard math Gbaji.


It's not the math that's hard. It's knowing how to apply it to the world around us. I'll give you a hint: 100% of the people are not average.


Quote:
But its ok in some years time we will be having Wealth Equality arguments all over the Western world, much like we had Social Equality marches back in the 30's 40's and in the 50's and 60's in the US. Corporations will no longer be able to horde the money and lord over the people, Profit sharing will become a new standard in enterprise, and it will be because of one thing and one thing only....People are poor because they don't make enough money working. Thats it. Simple as math gets.


I always get a kick out of people who think that evil capitalists are "hording" money. That's just funny on so many levels. And it shows just how completely you don't understand economics (much less capitalism, or monetary theory).


Quote:
Moreover for a system that boasts fairness and equality based on effort and work ethic, It is a hard system to sell when the VAST majority of the people who are in the 50% of unemployed/underemployed, are minorities whose parents and grandparents were still fighting for equal rights, while White America was basking in the peak of Capitalism and the American dream. Pretty hard to call a system fair when roughly 3/4 of the population was given a big hand up because their skin color wasn't black or brown.


No system is perfect. So instead of contrasting the system you don't like with perfection, why not compare it with a proposed alternative?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Oct 24 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Total off the whole economics/poverty topic, but...

RavennofTitan wrote:
I was when I first started cooking I was told by my executive chef that cooking was a lot like alchemy, you were turning sh*t into gold. What he meant was if something was nearing the end of it's self life you burned it up on the special or if you had shrimp, lobster(some places just give you the claw and tail meat and keep the knuckles) on the menu you took the shells and made a stock with them and used it as a base for the soup. Tomato, celery, onion scraps along with beef bone and chicken bones(shouldn't have to say it but stuff that didn't go out to the guest) went into the stocks so you didn't have to order as much to make the stocks and nothing was wasted.


Um... That's how you make broth. That's not "cheap". What's wrong with using as much of the food as possible without wasting anything? Nose to tail and all that, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Oct 24 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
**
580 posts
Nothing wrong with it but with how many times I had to tell inters not to throw those items away or even other cooks and these people went to school or worked in a kitchen before. That is something that people that have never worked in a restaurant might not know and will higher low skilled cooks as their leads and come up with menus on their own and not watch waste and more whole product would go into things that scraps would be more then enough for. The shrimp stock exp is about how some would buy shrimp base(stock in a can) which cost more then making your own stock from shells that you already have and payed for.

What I was trying to get at is with how many people say they dreamed of owning a restaurant are ones that might own a successful business that is not food service and think they can run a restaurant end up as the bulk of the 90% of them that fail. The rest are moderately successful/chef managers that have more pride then skill.
____________________________
.
#143 Oct 24 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's actually valid, depending on circumstances. Most restaurants run very thin margins and profits are solely based on volume. High end restaurants can be an exception to that.

Restaurants in Oz also have extremely thin margins, with profits solely made by selling drinks. But they manage to stay open with a $14/hour minimum wage. The Australian dollar is at parity with the US$ at the moment.

If US waitstaff got an immediate huge jump in minimum wage the cost of dining would skyrocket hideously , probably closing a lot of restaurants down. But if that wage was increased gradually over 15 years the slow creep of prices eating out would probably be mostly lost in the noise of CPI price rises everywhere, and diners would adjust. And a really late fair minimum wage is better than no fair minimum wage at all.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#144 Oct 24 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
I'm not saying waitstaff get paid $14 hour but should be more then then what they get now or at the minimum the tip should be part of the bill like at most if not all the major resorts and not left up to the customer and only the manager can change it if the service was unacceptable. In the kitchen at a decent place pay is between 10 to 15 a hour for good cooks. Anything less then that and you get what you pay.
____________________________
.
#145 Oct 24 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Ugly wrote:
That's actually valid, depending on circumstances. Most restaurants run very thin margins and profits are solely based on volume. High end restaurants can be an exception to that.


Not if you budget your money, which was my claim. It is very possible to sacrifice things that do not affect the quality of food, i.e. plates, silverware, condiments, etc. . Customers who care about that stuff will be going to high end restaurants anyway, in which you would be exempt. I've seen plenty episodes of Restaurant Impossible and I can say the number one reason why I've seen restaurants fail is because of a lack of leadership and management. You have people who have never ran a business before trying to run their ideal restaurant, underpricing meals, losing money in wasted food, over staffing, etc.

Gbaji wrote:
I was comparing the median pay for public school teachers to the starting pay scale for a list of jobs, one of which was Brigadier General.


So, you're saying that the median pay for public school teachers is the same as the starting pay of a Brigadier General? Or am I missing something?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#146 Oct 24 2013 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:

In 1950, a gallon of gasoline cost about 27 cents.
In 2012, a gallon of gasoline costs $3.69.
In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.
In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men were employed.
In 2012, less than 65 percent of all men are employed.
In 1950, the average duration of unemployment was about 12 weeks.
In 2012, the average duration of unemployment is about 40 weeks.
In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.
In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.


In 1950 the median income for males was $2,570. Today it's over $30k. To put it in perspective, the 1950 income when adjusted for inflation is equivalent to about $17k in today's money. Put another way, the median income is roughly double today in real purchasing power, compared to what it was in 1950.



God you are special aren't you. Do you even know what this discussion is about. Again you are targeting one aspect of a very large thing and using it to support your position, and it doesn't even do that. The average income in the US is under 30K/yr. sh*t 75% of your population makes under 50KYr. 52% of your population makes less than 27K /yr. 35% of your population makes less than 18K/yr. 10% of your population makes less than 10,000 per year.

35% of Americans are earning essentially the same dollar value they did in 1950. Which had you read further instead of cherry picking points you pretend to understand, would understand is just short of the required Income to live WITHOUT Government assistance.

50% of your population does not have enough money to keep up with Cost of Living increases. Do you understand what that means. Probably not so let me explain. It means half your country can not afford the current cost to live in the United States of America. Thankfully there are government programs that help people "keep" more of their money to spend on extra things. But certainly it must be alarming to you the outrageous acceleration in Government Dependency...

Costs have gone up, Money has stayed the same. Worse, American money is also now weaker around the Globe meaning Average Americans are not only losing value at home, but they have less purchasing power globally than they did a decade ago. Not only does this affect Americans ability to travel abroad. But it makes the cost to bring anything into the country more...Which in turn makes the cost of everything to the people go up.

You have a very special gift in ignoring facts and data, even more special is your complete disregard for looking at things as a whole. Its a wonder you are even literate enough to have a discussion...all though at times even that is questionable. The fact you can sit here and deny easily deciphered information is beyond me. The fact you can sit here and continually just toss out random guesses is equally absurd.

But hey the system is fine, 50% of the population is unable to support itself without Government assistance. I suppose thats why Government Social Spending rose drastically throughout the 00's. I suppose its why the US spends more on any program than anyone else in the entire world for middle of the pack results, I suppose its why your nation is 17 Trillion in debt, after all the system wasn't broken, it wasn't as if entire savings for Americans were wiped out or anything, and why not bail out the guys who caused the problem, Its only the tax payers who now shoulder the burden, and now have to live with a sputtering economy that is spinning all 4 tires while driving downhill blindfolded.

Corporations made more in profits last year than they paid employees, and the US made as GDP. The US is now ranked 14th in Global GDP/Capita down from #1 a spot it held for over 50 years. But yea the system is healthy there isn't anything wrong, its all relative to what you do!, McD's employees make 7 an hour because thats all McD's can afford to pay them.

Go do some homework buddy, All this information is available via your Census Records. Check into it all, Economics isn't one element, it encompasses about 10 different indicators, that all have an impact on the economy, A healthy nation does not have half its population hovering near Poverty, a healthy nation doesn't have Corporate incomes that are nearly twice as much as GDP. If you think your nation is healthy and normal economically...you are @#%^ing mental.

Quote:
No system is perfect. So instead of contrasting the system you don't like with perfection, why not compare it with a proposed alternative?


Why so we can sit here and read how little you know about Socialism?

(..and no I didn't read the rest of your drivel because if you can't grasp basic @#%^ing math, and decipher information from basic @#%^ing income tables, you are a unable to understand the discussion....Much like Health Care, and Taxes, and well pretty much everything you seem to think you know.)



Edited, Oct 24th 2013 11:39pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#147 Oct 24 2013 at 11:07 PM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ugly wrote:
That's actually valid, depending on circumstances. Most restaurants run very thin margins and profits are solely based on volume. High end restaurants can be an exception to that.


Not if you budget your money, which was my claim. It is very possible to sacrifice things that do not affect the quality of food, i.e. plates, silverware, condiments, etc. . Customers who care about that stuff will be going to high end restaurants anyway, in which you would be exempt. I've seen plenty episodes of Restaurant Impossible and I can say the number one reason why I've seen restaurants fail is because of a lack of leadership and management. You have people who have never ran a business before trying to run their ideal restaurant, underpricing meals, losing money in wasted food, over staffing, etc.


Investing in a garbage can magnet is also one of the best investments a place can make. When the chef of one of the outlets talked the executive chef in to buying them for all the outlets they paid for them selves in 3 months from saved tableware. Not a whole lot of money they only cost about 150 to $300 but that was 3 months so about $100 a month not going in the trash.

Most cooking shows are bullsh*t but Restaurant Impossible is pretty spot on and everything I have ever seen on that show I have seen fist hand at many places.



a stray apostrophe was left in.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:06am by RavennofTitan

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:33am by RavennofTitan
____________________________
.
#148 Oct 24 2013 at 11:21 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
That's not how you use an apostrophe, you illiterate FUCK.

I'll tell you something that goes in the trash that a magnet won't find. You know what it is? It's you. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU **** BELONG.

Also, because you're not strongly magnetic.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#149 Oct 25 2013 at 2:04 AM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
Sorry I missed it. I changed my mind on what I was typing and forgot to remove it sorry it bothered you so much. Was going to add in Ramsey's show he did with the same concept but it only airs on the BBC iirc and might had been confused with one of the other shows he does.
____________________________
.
#150 Oct 25 2013 at 3:09 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... That's how you make broth. That's not "cheap". What's wrong with using as much of the food as possible without wasting anything? Nose to tail and all that, right?
It is the cheap way to do it, because many(if not most) places will simply order in a stock because stock isn't that expensive to order in and it saves time.


Alma wrote:
I've seen plenty episodes of Restaurant Impossible and I can say the number one reason why I've seen restaurants fail is because of a lack of leadership and management. You have people who have never ran a business before trying to run their ideal restaurant, underpricing meals, losing money in wasted food, over staffing, etc.
So restaurants would be more efficient if they weren't run by people who knew nothing about running restaurants? You know what the problem is there? Restaurants are run by people who don't know how to run restaurants. Want to know soemthing else? **** would taste better if it wasn't ****.


Edited, Oct 25th 2013 6:42am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#151 Oct 25 2013 at 3:57 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Quote:
McD's employees make 7 an hour because thats all McD's can afford to pay them
I need some additional info to know if this should be alarming. Does McDonald's own all of its stores or do they franchise them out?

If they franchise most of them out, then you're making the wrong comparison. Then it should be $7 vs profits of the individual store.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Samira, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (33)