If you don't like the repair costs of your car, buy one with lower repair costs. You can even call attention to the repair costs and advise your friends not to buy that manufacturer's stuff. The market fixes this kind of thing eventually.
I'm not condoning companies that choose to be unreasonable about pricing and don't mind picking your pocket because they have you over a barrel, but I am arguing that they *should* have the right to price their stuff as they see fit and sell it for what the market will support, even if they make insane profits. Why? Because the alternative is to put government regulations in place for "price controls" which will only have negative results for availability. So, that car part that only costs a couple of dollars to make might only be available special order with a three week lead time because it doesn't make sense to stock them locally because there is only a few dollars profit in each sale due to price controls. Then, instead of paying $500 for the part and having your car back today, you wait 21 days and pay $5? Sound good to you? Personally, I'll take the price gouge now and then to get my car back running today.
Look, other industries do this kind of thing all the time. They sell something at a lower initial price that needs routine maintenance or parts replaced and then charge you for these parts (think print cartridges) to make up for the lower initial price over time. Ink Jet Printer makers where the masters of this....
Is this business model morally right? I don't think so, but it is worse to regulate such stuff away so we live with it and let the free market sort it out and the PR backlash fix the pricing structures of companies who don't provide the most value to their customers...
Ah... Well, I'm not justifying folks taking advantage, but that's how the free market works, and I'd rather have the free market's advantages. If a retailer takes advantage of me (and they have) I just don't go back. I don't buy anything at Best Buy for that reason, I don't even look, because I believe they took advantage of me at one point and didn't make it right when I asked. I vote with my dollars now. The market fixes these things... Eventually...
What I'm really saying is that I'd rather let the free market fix issues like this because the alternative solutions are worse. Government market controls don't fix these problems, because in that case you'd be sitting in your broken car because that $500 harness worth $4 in parts would not be in stock, anywhere at any price.
Even if the part only costs $4 in parts to make, you are just building somebody else's stuff. They did the design, they pay to get it built and run the supply chain pipeline. You make your profit, you are done with the part now because of your contract...
Let the market decide, because the alternative isn't pretty. Let the PR firestorm run it's course, let the market do it's thing and it will get fixed.
And you give a solid example of why companies are driven to not do this. I remember the PR firestorm called down on the CEO of the company that produced the Epi-Pens and he relented. Plus, in this case, due to the fact that epi-pens where generic, over pricing them was a stupid move as it made it attractive for another company to spin up manufacturing and under cut the price. The free market corrected this.
A better example for you is a drug maker that's marketing a drug they hold a patent on. There can be no competition in this case and the drug can command any price the user is willing to pay. However, this too is controlled by what insurance is willing to pay, and most don't care what some medical product costs because they don't pay anyway.
So in your example, the free market worked, the price got reduced... In my case, the free market doesn't work nearly as well, but you don't care because you don't pay directly, the insurance company does. The free market works as long as there is competition and participants are not colluding to fix prices.
If the market sustains that price, why shouldn't the retailer be able to sell it at that price?
What stops the manufacturer from undercutting by selling direct? If you can sell that $500 wiring harness for $100 and make money, why don't you? I'm guessing that the issue is more than markups as it goes though hands... Time is money, Money costs money, inventory costs money, storage cost money, marketing cost money, shipping costs money, handling costs money, storage cost money, counting money costs money... Get the picture?
Are we saying that companies cannot charge what the market is willing to pay for their products now? In most cases, I hope not.
Where I get the feeling of outrage, why should I pay that much for a part for my car? I'm not opposed to collecting $300/hour for labor or selling that rare baseball card I found in the attic for a tidy sum. How's that different except that I'm the one collecting and not paying?
Companies should be able to charge what ever they can for their products and let the market chips fall where they may. As long as they don't collude with their competition, have at it. Just figure that consumers will eventually figure out what you are doing and you will have to live with the PR backlash.
Not saying we are perfect, but we are better than any other superpower in history at trying to stay benevolent to the less powerful.
Cuba and Venezuela exist as independent countries, even after we meddled. Not because we where unable to enforce our will, but because we exercise restraint and let others make their choices. Both countries could have easily become US territory.
The quagmire in the middle east is a totally different beast. The *problem* for the US there is that the targets and the civilian population don't have a clear dividing line between them, both ideologically and physically. This problem is made worse by the US due to it's past policy shifting and unwillingness to do what it takes to deal with the issues and not just survive to kick the can down the road another couple of days, so I don't blame the people being effected for being sore about it. However, in these places, the solution isn't an easy one, nor is it one the US can affect on it's own, the people living there are going to be required to actually choose to accept some kind of effective fix. At this point, I don't see them willing to pick something, so this issue isn't going away and would only boil over into the rest of the world if we didn't contain it. So, yea, I feel bad for the folks on the ground on the receiving end, but I don't see that we have any other options. Do you? We cannot go hands off or the wheels come off a whole lot of important stuff that really matters to us and the rest of the world.
Remember the lesson from WW2, where we where unexpectedly caught fighting a two front war with multiple countries? We need enough capacity and capability to take on not just one country, but any group of countries who may conceivably band together and fight on multiple fronts away from the homeland.
Remember the lesson from history, let us not repeat such mistakes...The same mistakes of the 1920's I might add. We had financial troubles back then too and decided we didn't need the military because we wanted to save money... Maybe we should look elsewhere in the budget to cut spending? History say we should.
So.. You agree that had the USA been on a war footing, Japan wouldn't have been as likely to initiate their war? Great! Had we been prepared for war with Japan, the prosecution of the war would have gone faster and saved many lives on both sides. So, we threw away the chance of avoiding war, or making it quicker by remaining disarmed and more death and destruction was the result.
My point is then made. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" is a valid ethical practice. Having strength avoids war where showing weakness invites it. Thus, building the military for the purpose of having overwhelming force in place to avoid war is ultimately ethical. Being forced to use this overwhelming force because one is attacked is also ethical. So working for the military, developing better weapons and systems designed to kill people and break things, is also ethical.
The USA has a long history of both military power and benevolent behavior in regards to it's use. We are not perfect in execution, but we DO have the necessary principles to wield our military ethically and to the great benefit of the world at large. History is rife with the USA selflessly shedding US blood on foreign soil, for both our and the world's benefit.
We may not do everything perfectly.. Nobody does.. But historically our military and it's benevolent use is without precedent. We may be the world's sole super power, but we do NOT use our power in the historically self serving ways of the past. How do I prove this? Does Venezuela exist? Hasn't Cuba been allowed to exist? Are there not countries all over the globe that sit on valuable resources that we actually pay for instead of just take by force? Of course there are.
Seriously? It's not obvious from history what happens in response to weak military capacity?
It may be speculation but it's obvious from history that wars are rarely started when the outcome is obviously a given. Japan would have NEVER risked Perl Harbor had we been on a war capable footing in time. They knew it was a huge risk as it was, and had they known that this gambit wouldn't put the USA on it's heels long enough to build up a protection of their island, they would not have tried it.
So yea, this is speculation, but put in historical context, it's not without it's merits or parallels in history. Had we been armed and ready for war, we would have likely not had to fight that bloody Pacific war, and not fighting that war would have allowed us to effect the problem in Europe much quicker. Imaging if we could have invaded Europe 2 years sooner? Or if we had the necessary forces to hold and expand Dunkirk because we had a Navy presence in the med? WW2 would have been quite different.
I didn't bring up ethics, the post I was responding to did. I was merely pointing out the fact that it is indeed ethical to do work for the military because military power is necessary for the common good.
I would disagree with your view that the military is a necessary evil. Having a military is necessary but it's not evil any more than owning a firearm is evil. The issue is how it's used, simply having them is neither good nor bad.
However, Given that you agree that a military is necessary, working for them must be ethical which leaves us only discussing what's the ethical way to use the power.
You don't think Japan would have thought better of Perl Harbor had they not figured on having the bulk of the Pacific fleet there to sink? It was dumb luck they didn't actually succeed in sinking all our aircraft carriers you know. Japan's "miscalculation" would not have been made had we been ready. They wouldn't have tried the gambit because it would have been obviously doomed to fail had we actually had a Pacific fleet that didn't fit in Perl Harbor all at one time and had significant reserve resources on the west coast.
We are less responsible for Germany, but had we not been encumbered with the pacifist isolationist view we could have been in a better position to assist our allies in Europe and may have avoided even being in the war. As it was, encumbered with a war in the Pacific, it took multiple years to build up.
So, I contend that the war with Japan could have been avoided and certainly shortened had we been properly armed in the Pacific, and quickly defeating (or just not fighting Japan) would have had little problem shortening the European conflict by a year or two, vastly limiting the death and destruction the protracted conflict caused.
So, a strong and capable military avoids conflicts by making the outcome a given. Others don't start a war they know they cannot win. AND should a war break out, it shortens and limits the conflict when one side has overwhelming capability.
So we are only doomed to repeat history and not learn from it then?
Even in that case, doesn't having an already strong and capable military beat having to go "total war" such as in WW2?
The primary cause of WW2 was weakness in the face of aggression, both in Europe and in the Pacific. Had the USA not been on a pacifist kick and had been properly arming itself, Japan would have never tried their war and Germany would have easily been defeated in short order. Even if war had been inevitable in WW2, had the USA been ready the pain suffering and death of the war would have been much less as the war would have been much shorter.
Tell me again why we need to repeat this mistake a third time in modern history?
How is developing anything for the military ethical?
How's it not ethical?
Are we so naive as to think that having a strong and capable military is somehow unnecessary in today's world?
It amazes me how often I hear this view. Have we forgotten the lessons of WW1 so soon? Was the catastrophe of WW2, that demonstrated AGAIN the folly of not being prepared not enough of a reminder? History is rife with reasons why having a strong and capable military is both necessary and ethical because it prevents war, shortens those that break out and limits the death and destruction they cause.
Those who know history are doomed to helplessly watch while those who don't know history repeat it.
We live in an age where objective moral standards are rejected out of hand.
Which is good news for anyone who wants to reassure people that they are going to be ethical. Subjective ethics based in subjective morality are a piece of cake to adhere to.
Really?
Harvey Weinstein might beg to differ. Where I don't condone what the creep did to women (it was always wrong), we do have to recognize that his behavior was widely known and accepted by his peers and clients for decades. In his case, Subjective ethics has turned the tables on him now that what he was doing has fallen out of favor due to the #metoo movement.
Subjective ethics logically puts everyone's actions in question, both excusing and condemning in turn. Subjective ethics is basically mob rule, anarchy, shades of the French revolution where you are on top of the world one day and losing your head the next.
To reverse the FCC on this is basically the same as making a law. Both houses must pass the bill and the president must sign (or the veto over ridden in the senate)...
Hmmm.. So Trump's turning over his $200K+ yearly salary for being president to various causes is just him being stupid because he really needs the money?
Yea, Not buying this idea that Trump is bankrupt. Evidence suggests otherwise. He my not be worth what he claims, being prone to exaggeration as he is, but the guy isn't destitute... Not by a long shot.
Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.
I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.
Yea, I'm very sorry.. The whole "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" "hard work wins" message is quite hurtful to those who think the world owes them and will throw a riot, burring down their own neighborhoods to prove it. I know the pain they feel when the welfare checks get delayed or the WIC debit card stops working for 20 min and I just added to it by making them feel responsible for themselves, if just for a brief moment..
Donald's co-conspirators are already facing serious criminal charges
Hmmm.. Let me see... We have the following...
Defrauding the US Government (basically income tax evasion) and conspiracy to do this, a decade ago, for two people.
Lying to investigators, for two people..... (Like Scooter Libby did?) Oh yea, that's horrible....
13 + 3 foreign entities charged with trying to sway the election (for both candidates in turn) though $100K's worth of social media ads, but nothing coordinated with either campaign...
I got to say, this is not as much of a smoking gun as you'd like it to be. Do be careful, there are a number of democrats that have been involved in things that are worse in some cases.
Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.
It's more about managing what you spend to match what you take in than making more money. Usually more money doesn't help people who live paycheck to paycheck, it just allows them to dig a deeper hole. If you are struggling to service unsecured debt, you likely have a spending problem. If you find that a raise only puts you deeper in debt, your problem is spending, not earnings.
In today's day and age, in most places in the USA we are rapidly approaching full employment. This means it's a seller's market in labor. So if you don't make enough, get a better job. If you cannot get a better job, develop better skills and try again. So if you *really* need more money, you can get it by working hard, but if you don't control your debt load, it won't change a thing to earn more.
There is no better test for "not college bound" than becoming a Wal-Mart employee.
Why?
If one is wanting to go to school, why is a Wal-Mart job somehow crosswise to that goal?
My son has a $10/hour job he's held for two years and is starting college in the fall. Where I don't expect him to work full time and be a full time student to pay his way given I have the means, he *could* easily attend college and pay for it himself working part time, at least for the first two years at the community college.
If he can do it, I'm sure working at Wal-Mart wouldn't be that different.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like the repair costs of your car, buy one with lower repair costs. You can even call attention to the repair costs and advise your friends not to buy that manufacturer's stuff. The market fixes this kind of thing eventually.
I'm not condoning companies that choose to be unreasonable about pricing and don't mind picking your pocket because they have you over a barrel, but I am arguing that they *should* have the right to price their stuff as they see fit and sell it for what the market will support, even if they make insane profits. Why? Because the alternative is to put government regulations in place for "price controls" which will only have negative results for availability. So, that car part that only costs a couple of dollars to make might only be available special order with a three week lead time because it doesn't make sense to stock them locally because there is only a few dollars profit in each sale due to price controls. Then, instead of paying $500 for the part and having your car back today, you wait 21 days and pay $5? Sound good to you? Personally, I'll take the price gouge now and then to get my car back running today.
Look, other industries do this kind of thing all the time. They sell something at a lower initial price that needs routine maintenance or parts replaced and then charge you for these parts (think print cartridges) to make up for the lower initial price over time. Ink Jet Printer makers where the masters of this....
Is this business model morally right? I don't think so, but it is worse to regulate such stuff away so we live with it and let the free market sort it out and the PR backlash fix the pricing structures of companies who don't provide the most value to their customers...
Ah... Well, I'm not justifying folks taking advantage, but that's how the free market works, and I'd rather have the free market's advantages. If a retailer takes advantage of me (and they have) I just don't go back. I don't buy anything at Best Buy for that reason, I don't even look, because I believe they took advantage of me at one point and didn't make it right when I asked. I vote with my dollars now. The market fixes these things... Eventually...
What I'm really saying is that I'd rather let the free market fix issues like this because the alternative solutions are worse. Government market controls don't fix these problems, because in that case you'd be sitting in your broken car because that $500 harness worth $4 in parts would not be in stock, anywhere at any price.
Then why do you care what the retailer charges?
Even if the part only costs $4 in parts to make, you are just building somebody else's stuff. They did the design, they pay to get it built and run the supply chain pipeline. You make your profit, you are done with the part now because of your contract...
Let the market decide, because the alternative isn't pretty. Let the PR firestorm run it's course, let the market do it's thing and it will get fixed.
And you give a solid example of why companies are driven to not do this. I remember the PR firestorm called down on the CEO of the company that produced the Epi-Pens and he relented. Plus, in this case, due to the fact that epi-pens where generic, over pricing them was a stupid move as it made it attractive for another company to spin up manufacturing and under cut the price. The free market corrected this.
A better example for you is a drug maker that's marketing a drug they hold a patent on. There can be no competition in this case and the drug can command any price the user is willing to pay. However, this too is controlled by what insurance is willing to pay, and most don't care what some medical product costs because they don't pay anyway.
So in your example, the free market worked, the price got reduced... In my case, the free market doesn't work nearly as well, but you don't care because you don't pay directly, the insurance company does. The free market works as long as there is competition and participants are not colluding to fix prices.
I don't see the problem here..
If the market sustains that price, why shouldn't the retailer be able to sell it at that price?
What stops the manufacturer from undercutting by selling direct? If you can sell that $500 wiring harness for $100 and make money, why don't you? I'm guessing that the issue is more than markups as it goes though hands... Time is money, Money costs money, inventory costs money, storage cost money, marketing cost money, shipping costs money, handling costs money, storage cost money, counting money costs money... Get the picture?
So?
Are we saying that companies cannot charge what the market is willing to pay for their products now? In most cases, I hope not.
Where I get the feeling of outrage, why should I pay that much for a part for my car? I'm not opposed to collecting $300/hour for labor or selling that rare baseball card I found in the attic for a tidy sum. How's that different except that I'm the one collecting and not paying?
Companies should be able to charge what ever they can for their products and let the market chips fall where they may. As long as they don't collude with their competition, have at it. Just figure that consumers will eventually figure out what you are doing and you will have to live with the PR backlash.
Not saying we are perfect, but we are better than any other superpower in history at trying to stay benevolent to the less powerful.
Cuba and Venezuela exist as independent countries, even after we meddled. Not because we where unable to enforce our will, but because we exercise restraint and let others make their choices. Both countries could have easily become US territory.
The quagmire in the middle east is a totally different beast. The *problem* for the US there is that the targets and the civilian population don't have a clear dividing line between them, both ideologically and physically. This problem is made worse by the US due to it's past policy shifting and unwillingness to do what it takes to deal with the issues and not just survive to kick the can down the road another couple of days, so I don't blame the people being effected for being sore about it. However, in these places, the solution isn't an easy one, nor is it one the US can affect on it's own, the people living there are going to be required to actually choose to accept some kind of effective fix. At this point, I don't see them willing to pick something, so this issue isn't going away and would only boil over into the rest of the world if we didn't contain it. So, yea, I feel bad for the folks on the ground on the receiving end, but I don't see that we have any other options. Do you? We cannot go hands off or the wheels come off a whole lot of important stuff that really matters to us and the rest of the world.
Yes, we do need that level of ability....
Remember the lesson from WW2, where we where unexpectedly caught fighting a two front war with multiple countries? We need enough capacity and capability to take on not just one country, but any group of countries who may conceivably band together and fight on multiple fronts away from the homeland.
Remember the lesson from history, let us not repeat such mistakes...The same mistakes of the 1920's I might add. We had financial troubles back then too and decided we didn't need the military because we wanted to save money... Maybe we should look elsewhere in the budget to cut spending? History say we should.
So.. You agree that had the USA been on a war footing, Japan wouldn't have been as likely to initiate their war? Great! Had we been prepared for war with Japan, the prosecution of the war would have gone faster and saved many lives on both sides. So, we threw away the chance of avoiding war, or making it quicker by remaining disarmed and more death and destruction was the result.
My point is then made. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" is a valid ethical practice. Having strength avoids war where showing weakness invites it. Thus, building the military for the purpose of having overwhelming force in place to avoid war is ultimately ethical. Being forced to use this overwhelming force because one is attacked is also ethical. So working for the military, developing better weapons and systems designed to kill people and break things, is also ethical.
You need to change countries.. :)
The USA has a long history of both military power and benevolent behavior in regards to it's use. We are not perfect in execution, but we DO have the necessary principles to wield our military ethically and to the great benefit of the world at large. History is rife with the USA selflessly shedding US blood on foreign soil, for both our and the world's benefit.
We may not do everything perfectly.. Nobody does.. But historically our military and it's benevolent use is without precedent. We may be the world's sole super power, but we do NOT use our power in the historically self serving ways of the past. How do I prove this? Does Venezuela exist? Hasn't Cuba been allowed to exist? Are there not countries all over the globe that sit on valuable resources that we actually pay for instead of just take by force? Of course there are.
Seriously? It's not obvious from history what happens in response to weak military capacity?
It may be speculation but it's obvious from history that wars are rarely started when the outcome is obviously a given. Japan would have NEVER risked Perl Harbor had we been on a war capable footing in time. They knew it was a huge risk as it was, and had they known that this gambit wouldn't put the USA on it's heels long enough to build up a protection of their island, they would not have tried it.
So yea, this is speculation, but put in historical context, it's not without it's merits or parallels in history. Had we been armed and ready for war, we would have likely not had to fight that bloody Pacific war, and not fighting that war would have allowed us to effect the problem in Europe much quicker. Imaging if we could have invaded Europe 2 years sooner? Or if we had the necessary forces to hold and expand Dunkirk because we had a Navy presence in the med? WW2 would have been quite different.
I didn't bring up ethics, the post I was responding to did. I was merely pointing out the fact that it is indeed ethical to do work for the military because military power is necessary for the common good.
I would disagree with your view that the military is a necessary evil. Having a military is necessary but it's not evil any more than owning a firearm is evil. The issue is how it's used, simply having them is neither good nor bad.
However, Given that you agree that a military is necessary, working for them must be ethical which leaves us only discussing what's the ethical way to use the power.
You don't think Japan would have thought better of Perl Harbor had they not figured on having the bulk of the Pacific fleet there to sink? It was dumb luck they didn't actually succeed in sinking all our aircraft carriers you know. Japan's "miscalculation" would not have been made had we been ready. They wouldn't have tried the gambit because it would have been obviously doomed to fail had we actually had a Pacific fleet that didn't fit in Perl Harbor all at one time and had significant reserve resources on the west coast.
We are less responsible for Germany, but had we not been encumbered with the pacifist isolationist view we could have been in a better position to assist our allies in Europe and may have avoided even being in the war. As it was, encumbered with a war in the Pacific, it took multiple years to build up.
So, I contend that the war with Japan could have been avoided and certainly shortened had we been properly armed in the Pacific, and quickly defeating (or just not fighting Japan) would have had little problem shortening the European conflict by a year or two, vastly limiting the death and destruction the protracted conflict caused.
So, a strong and capable military avoids conflicts by making the outcome a given. Others don't start a war they know they cannot win. AND should a war break out, it shortens and limits the conflict when one side has overwhelming capability.
So we are only doomed to repeat history and not learn from it then?
Even in that case, doesn't having an already strong and capable military beat having to go "total war" such as in WW2?
The primary cause of WW2 was weakness in the face of aggression, both in Europe and in the Pacific. Had the USA not been on a pacifist kick and had been properly arming itself, Japan would have never tried their war and Germany would have easily been defeated in short order. Even if war had been inevitable in WW2, had the USA been ready the pain suffering and death of the war would have been much less as the war would have been much shorter.
Tell me again why we need to repeat this mistake a third time in modern history?
How is developing anything for the military ethical?
How's it not ethical?
Are we so naive as to think that having a strong and capable military is somehow unnecessary in today's world?
It amazes me how often I hear this view. Have we forgotten the lessons of WW1 so soon? Was the catastrophe of WW2, that demonstrated AGAIN the folly of not being prepared not enough of a reminder? History is rife with reasons why having a strong and capable military is both necessary and ethical because it prevents war, shortens those that break out and limits the death and destruction they cause.
Those who know history are doomed to helplessly watch while those who don't know history repeat it.
We live in an age where objective moral standards are rejected out of hand.
Which is good news for anyone who wants to reassure people that they are going to be ethical. Subjective ethics based in subjective morality are a piece of cake to adhere to.
Really?
Harvey Weinstein might beg to differ. Where I don't condone what the creep did to women (it was always wrong), we do have to recognize that his behavior was widely known and accepted by his peers and clients for decades. In his case, Subjective ethics has turned the tables on him now that what he was doing has fallen out of favor due to the #metoo movement.
Subjective ethics logically puts everyone's actions in question, both excusing and condemning in turn. Subjective ethics is basically mob rule, anarchy, shades of the French revolution where you are on top of the world one day and losing your head the next.
Worked so well in the commercial world. What good go wrong in the defense world?
Am I the only one who got a chuckle from this: "Google Promises Ethical Principles To Guide Development of Military AI"
It's like a bad joke.
Why?
Are we so naive to believe that a strong and capable military isn't necessary anymore because we have principles?
If so, How soon we forget the lesson of WW1 and WW2....
Those who know history are doomed to helplessly watch while those who don't know history, repeat it.
AND, Trump hasn't signed it...
To reverse the FCC on this is basically the same as making a law. Both houses must pass the bill and the president must sign (or the veto over ridden in the senate)...
Hmmm.. So Trump's turning over his $200K+ yearly salary for being president to various causes is just him being stupid because he really needs the money?
Yea, Not buying this idea that Trump is bankrupt. Evidence suggests otherwise. He my not be worth what he claims, being prone to exaggeration as he is, but the guy isn't destitute... Not by a long shot.
Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.
I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.
Yea, I'm very sorry.. The whole "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" "hard work wins" message is quite hurtful to those who think the world owes them and will throw a riot, burring down their own neighborhoods to prove it. I know the pain they feel when the welfare checks get delayed or the WIC debit card stops working for 20 min and I just added to it by making them feel responsible for themselves, if just for a brief moment..
Donald's co-conspirators are already facing serious criminal charges
Hmmm.. Let me see... We have the following...
Defrauding the US Government (basically income tax evasion) and conspiracy to do this, a decade ago, for two people.
Lying to investigators, for two people..... (Like Scooter Libby did?) Oh yea, that's horrible....
13 + 3 foreign entities charged with trying to sway the election (for both candidates in turn) though $100K's worth of social media ads, but nothing coordinated with either campaign...
Shesh.... That's it? That's "serious criminal charges" ?
I got to say, this is not as much of a smoking gun as you'd like it to be. Do be careful, there are a number of democrats that have been involved in things that are worse in some cases.
Wait.. What?
Are you saying the Russians spent $100K to get Trump elected? Or that they managed to bribe a billionaire real-estate developer for $100K?
You do see how either of these ideas are just flat crazy right?
LOL
You don't sue government for hurting your business...
The government just ends your business...
Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.
It's more about managing what you spend to match what you take in than making more money. Usually more money doesn't help people who live paycheck to paycheck, it just allows them to dig a deeper hole. If you are struggling to service unsecured debt, you likely have a spending problem. If you find that a raise only puts you deeper in debt, your problem is spending, not earnings.
In today's day and age, in most places in the USA we are rapidly approaching full employment. This means it's a seller's market in labor. So if you don't make enough, get a better job. If you cannot get a better job, develop better skills and try again. So if you *really* need more money, you can get it by working hard, but if you don't control your debt load, it won't change a thing to earn more.
There is no better test for "not college bound" than becoming a Wal-Mart employee.
Why?
If one is wanting to go to school, why is a Wal-Mart job somehow crosswise to that goal?
My son has a $10/hour job he's held for two years and is starting college in the fall. Where I don't expect him to work full time and be a full time student to pay his way given I have the means, he *could* easily attend college and pay for it himself working part time, at least for the first two years at the community college.
If he can do it, I'm sure working at Wal-Mart wouldn't be that different.