Inspired by Wal Mart thread

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.

There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?

Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.

Wrong. Because collectivist policies encourage collectivism, as it is the only way that businesses can protect themselves from the increased costs and risks.

LOL, and capitalist polices don't encourage capitalism? The employees don't need to protect themselves from being raped under the guise of "we're just protecting ourselves"?

How much protection do you need, no health insurance, wages that won't pay your l;iving expenses or enable you to save/invest enough to allow for your retiement. Then you can bitch about the worthless people who relied on SS for their retirement.

THEY NEVER HAD A CHOICE BUT TO RELY ON SS.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.

There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?

Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.

Wrong. Because collectivist policies encourage collectivism, as it is the only way that businesses can protect themselves from the increased costs and risks.

LOL, and capitalist polices don't encourage capitalism? The employees don't need to protect themselves from being raped under the guise of "we're just protecting ourselves"?

How much protection do you need, no health insurance, wages that won't pay your l;iving expenses or enable you to save/invest enough to allow for your retiement. Then you can bitch about the worthless people who relied on SS for their retirement.

THEY NEVER HAD A CHOICE BUT TO RELY ON SS.

Since when was America ever capitalist?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.

There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?

Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.

Wrong. Because collectivist policies encourage collectivism, as it is the only way that businesses can protect themselves from the increased costs and risks.

LOL, and capitalist polices don't encourage capitalism? The employees don't need to protect themselves from being raped under the guise of "we're just protecting ourselves"?

How much protection do you need, no health insurance, wages that won't pay your l;iving expenses or enable you to save/invest enough to allow for your retiement. Then you can bitch about the worthless people who relied on SS for their retirement.

THEY NEVER HAD A CHOICE BUT TO RELY ON SS.

Since when was America ever capitalist?

Now your just being ridiculous. Your not responding to any of my points, but instead are quotin quotes and trying to lead the disscussion off track into some esoteric disscussion where you will "win", at least in your head.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.

There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?

Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.

Wrong. Because collectivist policies encourage collectivism, as it is the only way that businesses can protect themselves from the increased costs and risks.

LOL, and capitalist polices don't encourage capitalism? The employees don't need to protect themselves from being raped under the guise of "we're just protecting ourselves"?

How much protection do you need, no health insurance, wages that won't pay your l;iving expenses or enable you to save/invest enough to allow for your retiement. Then you can bitch about the worthless people who relied on SS for their retirement.

THEY NEVER HAD A CHOICE BUT TO RELY ON SS.

Since when was America ever capitalist?

Now your just being ridiculous. Your not responding to any of my points, but instead are quotin quotes and trying to lead the disscussion off track into some esoteric disscussion where you will "win", at least in your head.

Oh please.... that's because your "points" are crap. You're not talking about having employees protect themselves -- that's a basic aspect of capitalism (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services). Your argument is in favor of some form of government-enforced "protection" -- according to your own undefined opinions -- of all of a certain class of people -- who you have yet to define beyond calling them "employees" -- whether they want that "protection" or not (but of course they must be in your opinion because you are all benevolent and wise).

You have not once even attempted to answer any of my repreated questions to have you define your undefined positions, nor have you really even put together a coherent argument beyond rhetoric and talking points. The only thing we really gotten from you is that some people should receive some form of government entitled protection (which you call a "fair living wage" but nobody has any idea what such a thing actually is) because, if not, then some evil people will screw them, and that anyone who dares even ask questions regarding your position here "hates poor people" (although we know for a fact that you are not one, so how you think you can speak for them, no one has any clue).

edit: One would hope that you could actually see how such wishful thinking (like yours) plays only into the hands of the rich and powerful that you think you're opposing.

And for godssakes, I hate to be a grammar nazi, but one could hope that a person of your age would know that your is not you're.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.

There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?

Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.

Wrong. Because collectivist policies encourage collectivism, as it is the only way that businesses can protect themselves from the increased costs and risks.

LOL, and capitalist polices don't encourage capitalism? The employees don't need to protect themselves from being raped under the guise of "we're just protecting ourselves"?

How much protection do you need, no health insurance, wages that won't pay your l;iving expenses or enable you to save/invest enough to allow for your retiement. Then you can bitch about the worthless people who relied on SS for their retirement.

THEY NEVER HAD A CHOICE BUT TO RELY ON SS.

Since when was America ever capitalist?

Now your just being ridiculous. Your not responding to any of my points, but instead are quotin quotes and trying to lead the disscussion off track into some esoteric disscussion where you will "win", at least in your head.

Oh please.... that's because your "points" are crap. You're not talking about having employees protect themselves -- that's a basic aspect of capitalism (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services). Your argument is in favor of some form of government-enforced "protection" -- according to your own undefined opinions -- of all of a certain class of people -- who you have yet to define beyond calling them "employees" -- whether they want that "protection" or not (but of course they must be in your opinion because you are all benevolent and wise).

You have not once even attempted to answer any of my repreated questions to have you define your undefined positions, nor have you really even put together a coherent argument beyond rhetoric and talking points. The only thing we really gotten from you is that some people should receive some form of government entitled protection (which you call a "fair living wage" but nobody has any idea what such a thing actually is) because, if not, then some evil people will screw them, and that anyone who dares even ask questions regarding your position here "hates poor people" (although we know for a fact that you are not one, so how you think you can speak for them, no one has any clue).

Your a real hoot. You complain abouyt the laws, then support actions that are immoral and shouldn't even require the goverment intervention in the first place. You would treat your horse better then your employee.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation or deserve health care? :disgust:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Your a real hoot. You complain abouyt the laws, then support actions that are immoral and shouldn't even require the goverment intervention in the first place. You would treat your horse better then your employee.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation or deserve health care? :disgust:

Okay, now you're just incoherent, avoiding my questions, and resorting to personal attacks again.

What immoral actions am I supposedly supporting? And why are you asking me to define something that I have already asked you to define? I didn't come up with this political catchphrase.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You're a real hoot. You complain abouyt the laws, then support actions that are immoral and shouldn't even require the goverment intervention in the first place. You would treat your horse better then your employee.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation or deserve health care? :disgust:

He complains about laws which have no use; like I mentioned before, we don't need laws to remind us to eat everyday. Setting a wage benchmark only allows companies to lower wages they might be willing to pay to their employees. If the corporation's ultimate goal is to drive their wages as low as possible, you wouldn't see the vast majority of jobs well above the minimum wage.

You state "deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation", whereas most low income earners in the US suffer obesity and waste food on a day to day basis. It all comes back to individual choices; I garantee if you 'increase' minimum wage (as the sacrifice of more American jobs...unemployment is proportional to wages) people will find more things to waste their money on and you will consider them poor because they have no savings or haven't considered unexpected future events.

If I give a poor family $200 a month...what do you think they will spend it on?

 

[1EZduzit]

I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Do you think a company would allow their employees (people who interact with customers, invested training and hiring costs in) to just starve to death?

Even if the person starved to death, do you think that's the company's fault? Gimme a break!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You're a real hoot. You complain abouyt the laws, then support actions that are immoral and shouldn't even require the goverment intervention in the first place. You would treat your horse better then your employee.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation or deserve health care? :disgust:

He complains about laws which have no use; like I mentioned before, we don't need laws to remind us to eat everyday. Setting a wage benchmark only allows companies to lower wages they might be willing to pay to their employees. If the corporation's ultimate goal is to drive their wages as low as possible, you wouldn't see the vast majority of jobs well above the minimum wage.

You state "deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation", whereas most low income earners in the US suffer obesity and waste food on a day to day basis. It all comes back to individual choices; I garantee if you 'increase' minimum wage (as the sacrifice of more American jobs...unemployment is proportional to wages) people will find more things to waste their money on and you will consider them poor because they have no savings or haven't considered unexpected future events.

If I give a poor family $200 a month...what do you think they will spend it on?

Luckily food is cheap. Unfortunately some people use it as a "fee good" measure because that's all they can afford. They try to eat their problems away and all it does is create more problems for them.

Whatever, your still dancing around the question I would like answered:

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goverment assitance or to deserve health care?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Do you think a company would allow their employees (people who interact with customers, invested training and hiring costs in) to just starve to death?

Even if the person starved to death, do you think that's the company's fault? Gimme a break!

What about retirement and health care?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Whatever wage a person voluntarily agrees to accept in return for their labor. For some people, that's a hell of a lot of money. For others, it's not much at all (and obviously, you are horrified both by the small amounts that some people agree to accept and the large amounts that others insist on having).

If you want to push for economic legislation, it would help if you had some clue about economics, beyond just mindless populist conspiracy theories. Real life is not a religion. There are no saints and devils. Just ordinary people living their ordinary lives interacting in ordinary ways.

I will tell you this though. In my business, those who agree to accept a wage or salary invariably get paid less than those who choose a commission based on the actual value of their labor.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Do you think a company would allow their employees (people who interact with customers, invested training and hiring costs in) to just starve to death?

Even if the person starved to death, do you think that's the company's fault? Gimme a break!

What about retirement and health care?

Originally posted by: Vic
I won't dispute that labor creates capital (because it obviously does). The question here, however, is should a person be entitled to a guaranteed return of more capital than their labor actually creates? Therein lies the rub.
My answer is no. But then again, I work on straight commission and am not protected by any minimum wage laws. I receive only what my labor actually creates.

 

[Genx87]

I will tell you this though. In my business, those who agree to accept a wage or salary invariably get paid less than those who choose a commission based on the actual value of their labor.

This is very very true.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Whatever wage a person voluntarily agrees to accept in return for their labor. For some people, that's a hell of a lot of money. For others, it's not much at all (and obviously, you are horrified both by the small amounts that some people agree to accept and the large amounts that others insist on having).

If you want to push for economic legislation, it would help if you had some clue about economics, beyond just mindless populist conspiracy theories. Real life is not a religion. There are no saints and devils. Just ordinary people living their ordinary lives interacting in ordinary ways.

I will tell you this though. In my business, those who agree to accept a wage or salary invariably get paid less than those who choose a commission based on the actual value of their labor.

Don't dance around the question. You critized me several times for not answering your questions to define my meqaning and I tried to do so.

What are the minimum requirements for an employee to qualify for a wage above the poverty level, health insurance, andretirement. These are all basic human needs, not some "populist conspiracy theory".

 

[TravisT]

Increasing minimum wage would definitely hurt me. History shows that inflation will be a result of increasing minimum wage. As someone who is a contractor, I get a cost of living raise evaluation every 2 years as determined by the Department of Labor (DOL). We haven't recieved raises in 6 years, i'm already crunched for money. If inflation rises much more, i'll be cramped to pay my bills. So i'm not sure i'm in favor of raising minimum wage due to the effects it will have on me... as selfish as that may be.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You're a real hoot. You complain abouyt the laws, then support actions that are immoral and shouldn't even require the goverment intervention in the first place. You would treat your horse better then your employee.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation or deserve health care? :disgust:

He complains about laws which have no use; like I mentioned before, we don't need laws to remind us to eat everyday. Setting a wage benchmark only allows companies to lower wages they might be willing to pay to their employees. If the corporation's ultimate goal is to drive their wages as low as possible, you wouldn't see the vast majority of jobs well above the minimum wage.

You state "deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation", whereas most low income earners in the US suffer obesity and waste food on a day to day basis. It all comes back to individual choices; I garantee if you 'increase' minimum wage (as the sacrifice of more American jobs...unemployment is proportional to wages) people will find more things to waste their money on and you will consider them poor because they have no savings or haven't considered unexpected future events.

If I give a poor family $200 a month...what do you think they will spend it on?

Luckily food is cheap. Unfortunately some people use it as a "fee good" measure because that's all they can afford. They try to eat their problems away and all it does is create more problems for them.

Whatever, your still dancing around the question I would like answered:

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goverment assitance or to deserve health care?

Food is cheap because there is far less goverment intervention than healthcare. In fact if governments didnt block food from being traded with other nations, food would be even cheaper.

The med schools limit the amount of doctors, Medicaid pays for the poor and elderly's drugs, and companies pay for health insurance. There are so many institutions out there, usually government subsidized and protected that keep prices for health care high. Similar to car insurance; go to an autoglass dealer and ask the price to replace a windshield. They will ask if it's under insurance or not, if it's under insurance it's twice the cost. Because these companies know the individual is not paying for it and most individuals will not complain, the prices remain huge.

When you create a system of entitlement, monopolies are created and governement foots the bill. Unfortunately it all comes back to the individual who pays taxes and ends up costing more.

Just like the windshield example; people don't complain because the isurance company pays. Question: How have insurance rates been doing lately? You will always pay one way or another; either through higher taxes and inflated costs because of government or paying out of your own pocket. Pick one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Whatever wage a person voluntarily agrees to accept in return for their labor. For some people, that's a hell of a lot of money. For others, it's not much at all (and obviously, you are horrified both by the small amounts that some people agree to accept and the large amounts that others insist on having).

If you want to push for economic legislation, it would help if you had some clue about economics, beyond just mindless populist conspiracy theories. Real life is not a religion. There are no saints and devils. Just ordinary people living their ordinary lives interacting in ordinary ways.

I will tell you this though. In my business, those who agree to accept a wage or salary invariably get paid less than those who choose a commission based on the actual value of their labor.

Don't dance around the question. You critized me several times for not answering your questions to define my meqaning and I tried to do so.

What are the minimum requirements for an employee to qualify for a wage above the poverty level, health insurance, andretirement. These are all basic human needs, not some "populist conspiracy theory".

I answered your question head-on. I cannot help it if you lack the economic knowledge to be able to understand it. Or (giving you the benefit of the doubt) the ability to drop your emotional biases long enought to accept it.

The real world really does work this way, which is why all corruption and harm has to be done through force and deception (and you're advocating force FYI). For example, Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is so evil, why do people shop there? If no one shopped there, they couldn't stay in business. If their pay is so evil, why do people work there? If no one worked there, they couldn't stay in business. Do you see how this works? Free exchange is to economics as democracy is to politics. When you argue against free exchange because you don't like the collective end result, it is akin to arguing democracy because you don't like the people's choice in government representation.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Do you think a company would allow their employees (people who interact with customers, invested training and hiring costs in) to just starve to death?

Even if the person starved to death, do you think that's the company's fault? Gimme a break!

What about retirement and health care?

Why is the person retired if they cannot afford to not work?

 

[Genx87]

Stunt: Everybody is entitled to 30 years of retirement, didnt you hear?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Do you think a company would allow their employees (people who interact with customers, invested training and hiring costs in) to just starve to death?

Even if the person starved to death, do you think that's the company's fault? Gimme a break!

What about retirement and health care?

Why is the person retired if they cannot afford to not work?

You evil person you! Why do you hate poor people?

The real question is, why did that person squander their retirement savings before they wished to retire? And why should another person, who sacrificed in order save for their retirement, be forced to pay for that person who didn't sacrifice? Because that's what really we're talking about here.
Same goes with health care. Why should the person who pays for the health care (and everyone does, whether their employer pays for it or not) be forced to pay for the health care of someone who makes the decision to spend that money on other things?

This is how the real world really works. You can't get something for nothing. Some people just don't get it. But they have no problem forcing other people to give something for their nothing (as the actual generous people give voluntarily without demanding that other people be forced to do the same).

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've tried to define it, but according to you I can't. Maybe if you answered my question that would help.

Why don't you define what you think it takes to deserve enough of a wage to prevent starvation, the need for goveerment assitance or to deserve health care?

Whatever wage a person voluntarily agrees to accept in return for their labor. For some people, that's a hell of a lot of money. For others, it's not much at all (and obviously, you are horrified both by the small amounts that some people agree to accept and the large amounts that others insist on having).

If you want to push for economic legislation, it would help if you had some clue about economics, beyond just mindless populist conspiracy theories. Real life is not a religion. There are no saints and devils. Just ordinary people living their ordinary lives interacting in ordinary ways.

I will tell you this though. In my business, those who agree to accept a wage or salary invariably get paid less than those who choose a commission based on the actual value of their labor.

Don't dance around the question. You critized me several times for not answering your questions to define my meqaning and I tried to do so.

What are the minimum requirements for an employee to qualify for a wage above the poverty level, health insurance, andretirement. These are all basic human needs, not some "populist conspiracy theory".

I answered your question head-on. I cannot help it if you lack the economic knowledge to be able to understand it. Or (giving you the benefit of the doubt) the ability to drop your emotional biases long enought to accept it.

The real world really does work this way, which is why all corruption and harm has to be done through force and deception (and you're advocating force FYI). For example, Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is so evil, why do people shop there? If no one shopped there, they couldn't stay in business. If their pay is so evil, why do people work there? If no one worked there, they couldn't stay in business. Do you see how this works? Free exchange is to economics as democracy is to politics. When you argue against free exchange because you don't like the collective end result, it is akin to arguing democracy because you don't like the people's choice in government representation.

It's not "free exchange" though. If it were, everyone in the world would be getting paid with greenbacks and it would cost everyone the same for health care, housing, etc.

If it weren't the fact that companies can outsource so many jobs, the playing field between labor and management would be much more level. I say they are playing a rigged game.

 

[fitzov]

Whatever wage a person voluntarily agrees to accept in return for their labor. For some people, that's a hell of a lot of money. For others, it's not much at all (and obviously, you are horrified both by the small amounts that some people agree to accept and the large amounts that others insist on having).

That simplistic rendition of the situation belies your unpragmatic idealism.

Let me illustrate the obtuseness of your concepts with a thought experiment: imagine two individuals--Pat the banker and Chris the cashier. Pat has a job that pays 150K a year and has excellent benefits. He decides to "accept" another job because it pays 151K. Chris is unemployed, through no fault of his own (yes, it is hard for you to imagine, yet it is possible), and looks for anything he can find. He decides to "accept" a minimum wage job without any benefits, because he needs food.

Are both people "accepting" a job? Yes, but for different, relevant reasons. You want to ignore those reasons and oversimplify everything, but in the real world those reasons are important.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stunt: Everybody is entitled to 30 years of retirement, didnt you hear?

Where did I say that? Put up or shut up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stunt: Everybody is entitled to 30 years of retirement, didnt you hear?

Screw that. 30 years is too little. I want to be entitled to mandatory retirement, fully funded at a high standard of living, at age 35!

<-- is 35