Their fear is that if the unwashed masses can actually afford something, the increased demand due to a larger amount of people being able to afford something, will drive prices for stuff that only they could afford before up.
What they fail to see is how our economy actually works. If anything, it will result in more supply to hoover up the increased amount of demand, creating jobs and employing more people. Which is pretty unlikely considering the minimal increase in purchasing power.
I hear this myth every time, yet strangely it never happens. Maybe because there's exactly no reason why it should?
We, in our post-industrial, service based economy, are a, well, service economy. Depending on the area you're in, 60 to 80 percent of all jobs are services. In other words, jobs that depend mostly on workforce and less on natural or industrial resources. Now, inflation is driven by a surplus of money compared to goods and services offered, with a shortage of supply and an increased demand due to a surplus of money, inflation would rise. But what happens in an economy with a surplus of money, a supply that is mainly dependent on workforce AND unemployed people?
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure that one out yourself.
But as a hint: As soon as we have a shortage of workforce, I agree with you. Until then, please, go troll somewhere else.
But people can't pay it back, that's the whole point. Yes, not everyone, but increasing numbers of people are in WAY over their head. With zero chance to ever recover.
If you hand out participation tokens for a group, you're not exactly encouraging the group to work really hard. You encourage them to participate, but they'll expect to get a prize for that already.
Henry Kissinger - For ending a war he started The EU - For... well, basically for keeping its members from killing each other for over 60 years, this is indeed impressive considering their history, I give 'em that. Al Gore - For producing a lot of hot air that allegedly cools the planet Jimmy Carter - For trying. Really hard. United Nations - For wrapping the global big players in so much red tape that they can't wage war sensibly anymore. David Trimble and John Hume - For not shooting each other anymore. As a side note, anyone available for starting a civil war we could then end? I'm asking for a friend. International Campaign to Ban Landmines - For making landmines magically disappear. Except the few that make people disappear instead every year. Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat - For bringing peace to the middle east. Just in case anyone was still wondering whether this Prize is a joke. Mikhail Gorbachev - Mostly for not being Josef Stalin United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces - Basically for being the good natured idiot that gets into the struggle of two bullies, with the express intention that they should kick the idiot instead of each other. Lech Wasa - For founding a union, but being considerate enough to do it in a country we do NOT like. Mother Teresa - For making poverty and pain something to celebrate Menachem Begin and Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat - See Peres/Rabin/Arafat. Andrei Sakharov - For pissing off the Commies Willy Brandt - For not wanting East Germany back. International Labour Organization - Fuck knows why Martin Luther King, Jr. - For being the peaceful nig.... Unlike that Malcolm guy we didn't like. George C. Marshall - For finding a way to sell US goods and calling it aid Carlos Saavedra Lamas - For ending a war nobody gave a fuck about. But find someone else who gave a fuck about peace in 1936 Carl von Ossietzky - For not being a Nazi
And a few more I didn't find anything to write about.
Earning more or even twice the average household income is fairly easy if you're not unemployed or working a "want fries with this" job, because the wages are SO low that these people have to work two or three jobs just to get by. If you actually have one job that lets you live at a level that doesn't require you to ponder how to scrape together the money for some food when the 20th rolls around this month, congrats, you're middle class.
The problem here is that you can only solve one of those two problems. If you vote left to avoid squandering money to the corporations, you get to pay for the immigrants. If you vote right to stop funneling money to the traffickers the immigrants pay off, the money will instead be thrown at the corporations.
Either way, no money for you. One should assume that with all those parties available, at least one would be decent.
So the difference to a Republican government is essentially only that under a Democrat government you actually do get government handouts and get to survive?
Read the article carefully. It said that half the world is now middle-class. And considering that for the same resources you can make 10 Indians "Indian-middle-class" that it would take to make an American "American-middle-class"... well... welcome to global market and price optimization.
In this case the problem still isn't sexism but cronyism, since gender doesn't matter. A qualified man would fail as much as a qualified woman if all that matters is whether your daddy knows someone on the board.
In the end, there's only two real possible outcomes. Either, and this would actually already be the best possible outcome, women who have the "right" daddy are now "eligible" to become part of the social club called board, or, and this is actually the more likely and possibly worst outcome, we see some token promotions where board members "promote" their wives with the explicit or implied order to "look pretty and shut up".
One should hope so. But what I'd expect is that they'll simply take the cheapest female warm body they find, tell her to shut her pie hole and sit in the background, cash her check and don't interfere with their business.
The goalpost is where it was, the problem is not gender but cronyism. The best person for the job would be nice, but we don't get that. Independent of gender. If there was the perfect man for the job, he wouldn't get it either unless he's part of the "in-circle". You could just as well create some sort of mandatory directorate position for a worker and if filled with a man, he would be just as much the water boy for the good old boys network.
The problem is not gender. The problem is the in-circle of "friends" who put each other into relevant positions. You cannot solve this with some bogus "diversity" program, because all you accomplish is creating a token position for the token bitch, the token nig..., the token fag, the token... you get the idea. And NONE of them will actually be part of the directorate. All you get that way is that some lucky person gets a cushy "sit there, look pretty and shut up" position without power, without influence and most of all without changing jack shit for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.... considering the quality of the leader of the free world.....
Snide comments aside, do you think that's not what is going to happen?
Good.
Slavery and cheap labor have always been anathema to progress and technological advancement.
Keep it nearby, this ain't gonna change much.
Their fear is that if the unwashed masses can actually afford something, the increased demand due to a larger amount of people being able to afford something, will drive prices for stuff that only they could afford before up.
What they fail to see is how our economy actually works. If anything, it will result in more supply to hoover up the increased amount of demand, creating jobs and employing more people. Which is pretty unlikely considering the minimal increase in purchasing power.
I hear this myth every time, yet strangely it never happens. Maybe because there's exactly no reason why it should?
We, in our post-industrial, service based economy, are a, well, service economy. Depending on the area you're in, 60 to 80 percent of all jobs are services. In other words, jobs that depend mostly on workforce and less on natural or industrial resources. Now, inflation is driven by a surplus of money compared to goods and services offered, with a shortage of supply and an increased demand due to a surplus of money, inflation would rise. But what happens in an economy with a surplus of money, a supply that is mainly dependent on workforce AND unemployed people?
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure that one out yourself.
But as a hint: As soon as we have a shortage of workforce, I agree with you. Until then, please, go troll somewhere else.
Who goes back a century and tells Henry Ford that he's a Commie?
Ok, I guess you might want to explain this one, because so far I cannot identify much beneficial the US did for the "third world" lately.
I literally took the same metric Pew Research used. How's that "another opinion"?
But people can't pay it back, that's the whole point. Yes, not everyone, but increasing numbers of people are in WAY over their head. With zero chance to ever recover.
Well, at least they got peanut butter. Sure beats the blessings and prayers the altar boys got, if that.
Unless you just want everything to be tossed on the floor, I fail to see the benefit.
Gender SHOULDN'T matter for topics like this yet It DOES matter because too many people (like yourself) make it matter in the wrong places.
How do you expect something to matter LESS when you put MORE emphasis on it? That's the part I don't get.
If you hand out participation tokens for a group, you're not exactly encouraging the group to work really hard. You encourage them to participate, but they'll expect to get a prize for that already.
Allow me to continue this list.
Henry Kissinger - For ending a war he started ... well, basically for keeping its members from killing each other for over 60 years, this is indeed impressive considering their history, I give 'em that.
The EU - For
Al Gore - For producing a lot of hot air that allegedly cools the planet
Jimmy Carter - For trying. Really hard.
United Nations - For wrapping the global big players in so much red tape that they can't wage war sensibly anymore.
David Trimble and John Hume - For not shooting each other anymore. As a side note, anyone available for starting a civil war we could then end? I'm asking for a friend.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines - For making landmines magically disappear. Except the few that make people disappear instead every year.
Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat - For bringing peace to the middle east. Just in case anyone was still wondering whether this Prize is a joke.
Mikhail Gorbachev - Mostly for not being Josef Stalin
United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces - Basically for being the good natured idiot that gets into the struggle of two bullies, with the express intention that they should kick the idiot instead of each other.
Lech Wasa - For founding a union, but being considerate enough to do it in a country we do NOT like.
Mother Teresa - For making poverty and pain something to celebrate
Menachem Begin and Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat - See Peres/Rabin/Arafat.
Andrei Sakharov - For pissing off the Commies
Willy Brandt - For not wanting East Germany back.
International Labour Organization - Fuck knows why
Martin Luther King, Jr. - For being the peaceful nig.... Unlike that Malcolm guy we didn't like.
George C. Marshall - For finding a way to sell US goods and calling it aid
Carlos Saavedra Lamas - For ending a war nobody gave a fuck about. But find someone else who gave a fuck about peace in 1936
Carl von Ossietzky - For not being a Nazi
And a few more I didn't find anything to write about.
Earning more or even twice the average household income is fairly easy if you're not unemployed or working a "want fries with this" job, because the wages are SO low that these people have to work two or three jobs just to get by. If you actually have one job that lets you live at a level that doesn't require you to ponder how to scrape together the money for some food when the 20th rolls around this month, congrats, you're middle class.
The problem here is that you can only solve one of those two problems. If you vote left to avoid squandering money to the corporations, you get to pay for the immigrants. If you vote right to stop funneling money to the traffickers the immigrants pay off, the money will instead be thrown at the corporations.
Either way, no money for you. One should assume that with all those parties available, at least one would be decent.
So the difference to a Republican government is essentially only that under a Democrat government you actually do get government handouts and get to survive?
Well, no, they cannot. They can buy them and go deeper into debt, but affording them, they can not.
Well, endangered species usually get some sympathy.
VP of HR. Back in my day we used to call her the payroll hag. But back in my day we called the "facility manager" janitor.
Read the article carefully. It said that half the world is now middle-class. And considering that for the same resources you can make 10 Indians "Indian-middle-class" that it would take to make an American "American-middle-class"... well... welcome to global market and price optimization.
In this case the problem still isn't sexism but cronyism, since gender doesn't matter. A qualified man would fail as much as a qualified woman if all that matters is whether your daddy knows someone on the board.
In the end, there's only two real possible outcomes. Either, and this would actually already be the best possible outcome, women who have the "right" daddy are now "eligible" to become part of the social club called board, or, and this is actually the more likely and possibly worst outcome, we see some token promotions where board members "promote" their wives with the explicit or implied order to "look pretty and shut up".
Yes, it's looking down for Americans, but Indians, Chinese, Russians and a lot of others are doing so much better! Celebrate!
One should hope so. But what I'd expect is that they'll simply take the cheapest female warm body they find, tell her to shut her pie hole and sit in the background, cash her check and don't interfere with their business.
The goalpost is where it was, the problem is not gender but cronyism. The best person for the job would be nice, but we don't get that. Independent of gender. If there was the perfect man for the job, he wouldn't get it either unless he's part of the "in-circle". You could just as well create some sort of mandatory directorate position for a worker and if filled with a man, he would be just as much the water boy for the good old boys network.
The problem is not gender. The problem is the in-circle of "friends" who put each other into relevant positions. You cannot solve this with some bogus "diversity" program, because all you accomplish is creating a token position for the token bitch, the token nig..., the token fag, the token ... you get the idea. And NONE of them will actually be part of the directorate. All you get that way is that some lucky person gets a cushy "sit there, look pretty and shut up" position without power, without influence and most of all without changing jack shit for everyone else.