If someone wants to live in a swanky, high cost-of-living locale, they need to fund that themselves
But every person who lives in a swanky, high cost-of-living locale relies on people doing low-end jobs that nobody, nobody is willing to pay cost-of-living-adjusted wages for. Your toilet cleaners, your bus drivers, your grocery-store clerks, your drivers. A high-end district still needs those people -- are they supposed to earn not only pennies, but then have to pay for public transport for three hours a day to get from their low-rent neighborhood to the one they work at?
I don't really see the answer here, but totally ignoring cost-of-living problems isn't going to make the cost-of-living issue go away.
Sure, once you prove these allegations of theft. Wealth is not, in and of itself, evidence of theft or any other crime, and around here individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Wealth, rightfully earned, is a perfectly legitimate measure of success. If you think it wasn't rightfully earned, then don't just insinuate as much—prove it.
We already know that trickle-down economics is a fraud, and we have 35 years of evidence to prove it. Barring laws to prevent it, what we will always have is trickle-up economics -- the top squeezes the bottom. Every time you close a factory in the US so you can open one in a country where the peasants work for pennies -- yes, that's theft because you're working to drive wages down to keep the profit. Every time you break a union so you can pay workers stagnant wages while inflation continues on -- yes, that's theft. Every time you mass layoff so you can hire different workers at lower wages -- yes, that's theft big-time. The system is set up to squeeze the money out of the lower classes so the upper can keep it. And then we come up with bullshit rationalizations that they're just ever so much smarter, that they're 50x more valuable today than they were 50 years ago.
He's missing that it should be funded by cutting services. When welfare is canceled, you save all that
I don't know that we could cancel welfare. The poverty line is what... somewhere in the $30k range? And UBI would be $10k? That's nowhere near enough to eliminate the need for welfare.
I'm not sure if that's a fallacy now. We're living in a society where there aren't enough jobs to employ the people we have. We're actually seriously thinking of the Universal Basic Income, which is possibly the greatest implementation of the Broken Windows Fallacy I've ever heard of.
Is it "fair" that people who work hard and effectively, get their money stolen from them to make your hallucination into reality?
Did they work that hard and effectively? Or have they worked to destroy unions and drive wages down to the subsistence levels, taking the money they would have previously paid to workers and kept it themselves?
Are vice presidents and CEOs just -SO- much better now than they were 50 years ago that they justify their salaries and incentives? Or have they simply managed to pull a larger piece of the pie their way, leaving less for everyone else?
Putin's takeover of Crimea is equally a classic demonstration of what can be achieved with minimal military effort.
Ensure that your opponent is feckless while they say "Uhhh.. what do I do? Uhhh, we're analyzing the situation. And looking really serious-like at Putin."
Go to southeast China and work there. Those goods do not manufacture themselves
Oh! Leave the country! Yes, that's a great answer for how to improve the US economy for Americans. Just fall on your sword and go and live a life of poverty in another country, all so you can enrich a fat cat back at home. Great idea, why aren't people doing that?
Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade
Unless you're going to be a plumber, there aren't many of those jobs left. The US has exported most of its low-skill manufacturing, and the low-skill construction and agricultural and custodial jobs tend to go to illegal immigrants because permanent residents want a higher salary. Go figure.
The money has been squandered on a perpetual war that began in 2001. As of 2013, the combined costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were estimated at $4 trillion. That money equally divided amongst all Americans amounts to roughly $1000 / person / year.
Yes and no. It's not like we air-dropped 4 trillion dollar bills over Iraq and Afghanistan; that money got spend on the salaries of Americans and contracting companies. Sure, there was a lot wasted, but a lot of that money was recycled back into the economy.
Living-wage jobs have been methodically destroyed on both sides of the pond by the greed-pig class.
You mean the class that Trump has been in and actively participated in and encouraged his entire life? Trump is somehow supposed to be the savior now, and we're just supposed to pretend that the first 69 years of his life didn't happen or are just irrelevant?
Hillary Clinton was talking about her predecessors. That's previous Secretaries of State, because of course, different departments will have different communications rules. We only have four previous Secretaries to compare to in the era of email at the State Department.
I think it's just confirmation bias. I think in the mid-90s the right became really uncomfortable with the idea of a first lady exerting political influence. They figured that was going way outside her role and trying to usurp her husband's power so they started labelling her as lying and manipulative and really haven't stopped.
What, they didn't mind it when Nancy controlled Ronald Reagan's schedule?
Then there is the email bullshit, she used exactly the same system that previous *republican* administrations did,
100% false. Rice did not use email, and Powell did not use a server that he or his staff operated. But my problem is not even that she used a server -- it's that every time someone asks her about this, she lies. "It was allowed." (It wasn't) "My predecessors did this." (they didn't) "I didn't receive classified information." (over 100 documents...) "Those documents were inappropriately classified after." (the 100+ documents were classified AT THE TIME).
She just keeps feeding into this mantra that she lies and is untrustworthy. No one else needs to paint this picture -- she is doing this all on her own stating easily provable lies. She's not total absolute 100% pants-on-fire like Trump is, but she makes it really difficult for anyone to vote FOR her.
As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays
Trump just announced as his Vice President a governor who openly advocates forcing "gay conversion therapy" as a biblical method to cure homosexuality.
It absolutely does not matter -- once you refuse a judge's order to take down content, you're screwed. Gawker would have been just fine if they'd removed their illegally-gained content.
When you see someone whining about "Libertarian blowhards" and assuming that taxation = society you know you're dealing with a statist psycopath. These are the kinds of idiots that would support the population controls of Logan's run provided it was the will of their darling elitist masters.
Sadly our living room furniture is made of living hippo rectum with rancid discharge flowing from the cushions and all over the floor.
Newsflash: America is not in that sad a shape. Things could certainly be better, but they're 'ok.' Certainly not so bad that we need to burn it to the ground, or a revolution, or all this other nonsense that lead to the rise of Trump, a man who claims everything is shitty because he gets substantial personal gain from people thinking everything is shitty.
Hillary is just the ultimate politician, a crude husk of a human, stuffed full of a lifetime of political demons that want their piece.
There are plenty of people as rich or wildly richer than Trump. Unlike many of them, he hasn't been hip-deep in real politics all his adult life
I feel like this is part of some sort of revision of the word "elite" where an "elite" that we hate has to be part of government. The businessmen and CEOs are far more of an elite than anyone in government save perhaps our senators/reps/president.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone wants to live in a swanky, high cost-of-living locale, they need to fund that themselves
But every person who lives in a swanky, high cost-of-living locale relies on people doing low-end jobs that nobody, nobody is willing to pay cost-of-living-adjusted wages for. Your toilet cleaners, your bus drivers, your grocery-store clerks, your drivers. A high-end district still needs those people -- are they supposed to earn not only pennies, but then have to pay for public transport for three hours a day to get from their low-rent neighborhood to the one they work at?
I don't really see the answer here, but totally ignoring cost-of-living problems isn't going to make the cost-of-living issue go away.
Sure, once you prove these allegations of theft. Wealth is not, in and of itself, evidence of theft or any other crime, and around here individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Wealth, rightfully earned, is a perfectly legitimate measure of success. If you think it wasn't rightfully earned, then don't just insinuate as much—prove it.
We already know that trickle-down economics is a fraud, and we have 35 years of evidence to prove it. Barring laws to prevent it, what we will always have is trickle-up economics -- the top squeezes the bottom. Every time you close a factory in the US so you can open one in a country where the peasants work for pennies -- yes, that's theft because you're working to drive wages down to keep the profit. Every time you break a union so you can pay workers stagnant wages while inflation continues on -- yes, that's theft. Every time you mass layoff so you can hire different workers at lower wages -- yes, that's theft big-time. The system is set up to squeeze the money out of the lower classes so the upper can keep it. And then we come up with bullshit rationalizations that they're just ever so much smarter, that they're 50x more valuable today than they were 50 years ago.
He's missing that it should be funded by cutting services. When welfare is canceled, you save all that
I don't know that we could cancel welfare. The poverty line is what... somewhere in the $30k range? And UBI would be $10k? That's nowhere near enough to eliminate the need for welfare.
I'm not sure if that's a fallacy now. We're living in a society where there aren't enough jobs to employ the people we have. We're actually seriously thinking of the Universal Basic Income, which is possibly the greatest implementation of the Broken Windows Fallacy I've ever heard of.
Is it "fair" that people who work hard and effectively, get their money stolen from them to make your hallucination into reality?
Did they work that hard and effectively? Or have they worked to destroy unions and drive wages down to the subsistence levels, taking the money they would have previously paid to workers and kept it themselves?
Are vice presidents and CEOs just -SO- much better now than they were 50 years ago that they justify their salaries and incentives? Or have they simply managed to pull a larger piece of the pie their way, leaving less for everyone else?
Putin's takeover of Crimea is equally a classic demonstration of what can be achieved with minimal military effort.
Ensure that your opponent is feckless while they say "Uhhh.. what do I do? Uhhh, we're analyzing the situation. And looking really serious-like at Putin."
That assumes that population only ever increases. In many locations population levels off as income and education grows.
Go to southeast China and work there. Those goods do not manufacture themselves
Oh! Leave the country! Yes, that's a great answer for how to improve the US economy for Americans. Just fall on your sword and go and live a life of poverty in another country, all so you can enrich a fat cat back at home. Great idea, why aren't people doing that?
Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade
Unless you're going to be a plumber, there aren't many of those jobs left. The US has exported most of its low-skill manufacturing, and the low-skill construction and agricultural and custodial jobs tend to go to illegal immigrants because permanent residents want a higher salary. Go figure.
Wow, so this article was US centric? When did the US change to use the pound?
The US has used pounds for hundreds of years. No metric system here, baby!
The money has been squandered on a perpetual war that began in 2001. As of 2013, the combined costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were estimated at $4 trillion. That money equally divided amongst all Americans amounts to roughly $1000 / person / year.
Yes and no. It's not like we air-dropped 4 trillion dollar bills over Iraq and Afghanistan; that money got spend on the salaries of Americans and contracting companies. Sure, there was a lot wasted, but a lot of that money was recycled back into the economy.
Living-wage jobs have been methodically destroyed on both sides of the pond by the greed-pig class.
You mean the class that Trump has been in and actively participated in and encouraged his entire life? Trump is somehow supposed to be the savior now, and we're just supposed to pretend that the first 69 years of his life didn't happen or are just irrelevant?
Hillary Clinton was talking about her predecessors. That's previous Secretaries of State, because of course, different departments will have different communications rules. We only have four previous Secretaries to compare to in the era of email at the State Department.
Here we go, folks, the #1 reason why SJW, once a beautiful term full of meaning, has now become entirely useless and deserves to be retired.
I think it's just confirmation bias. I think in the mid-90s the right became really uncomfortable with the idea of a first lady exerting political influence. They figured that was going way outside her role and trying to usurp her husband's power so they started labelling her as lying and manipulative and really haven't stopped.
What, they didn't mind it when Nancy controlled Ronald Reagan's schedule?
Then there is the email bullshit, she used exactly the same system that previous *republican* administrations did,
100% false. Rice did not use email, and Powell did not use a server that he or his staff operated.
But my problem is not even that she used a server -- it's that every time someone asks her about this, she lies.
"It was allowed." (It wasn't)
"My predecessors did this." (they didn't)
"I didn't receive classified information." (over 100 documents...)
"Those documents were inappropriately classified after." (the 100+ documents were classified AT THE TIME).
She just keeps feeding into this mantra that she lies and is untrustworthy. No one else needs to paint this picture -- she is doing this all on her own stating easily provable lies. She's not total absolute 100% pants-on-fire like Trump is, but she makes it really difficult for anyone to vote FOR her.
Tastes too "gamey" for me to get into.
As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays
Trump just announced as his Vice President a governor who openly advocates forcing "gay conversion therapy" as a biblical method to cure homosexuality.
It absolutely does not matter -- once you refuse a judge's order to take down content, you're screwed. Gawker would have been just fine if they'd removed their illegally-gained content.
When you see someone whining about "Libertarian blowhards" and assuming that taxation = society you know you're dealing with a statist psycopath. These are the kinds of idiots that would support the population controls of Logan's run provided it was the will of their darling elitist masters.
I love your strawmen, AC. They're so evocative!
Not sure, the article mentioned that his prior affiliation was "unspecified." It's possible he was just not registered with a party.
Sadly our living room furniture is made of living hippo rectum with rancid discharge flowing from the cushions and all over the floor.
Newsflash: America is not in that sad a shape. Things could certainly be better, but they're 'ok.' Certainly not so bad that we need to burn it to the ground, or a revolution, or all this other nonsense that lead to the rise of Trump, a man who claims everything is shitty because he gets substantial personal gain from people thinking everything is shitty.
Hillary is just the ultimate politician, a crude husk of a human, stuffed full of a lifetime of political demons that want their piece.
Well at least we agree on that!
There are plenty of people as rich or wildly richer than Trump. Unlike many of them, he hasn't been hip-deep in real politics all his adult life
I feel like this is part of some sort of revision of the word "elite" where an "elite" that we hate has to be part of government. The businessmen and CEOs are far more of an elite than anyone in government save perhaps our senators/reps/president.
It's a choice between Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil.
Man, I know I appreciated Tywin Lannister more than Joffrey or Ramsey Bolton.
Of course the science is settled: I said it first and you just confirmed it independently. On the Internet that makes it true.
Thank you, The Internet, for bringing the science!