FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Card mechanic deals the second card, in slow motion

Card mechanic deals the second card, in slow motion

(1:29) Good advice, never play cards with strangers.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1284 days ago)

Only a robot could do better. I wonder how long before we see that.

Original comment

Only a robot could do better. I wonder how long before we see that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1284 days ago)

If you go to vegas, you can play poker on a machine like a slot machine. With the number of people that play, this reduces the salary expense of those casinos. More things will become automated as salaries increase.

Original comment

If you go to vegas, you can play poker on a machine like a slot machine. With the number of people that play, this reduces the salary expense of those casinos. More things will become automated as salaries increase.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1284 days ago)

Certainly more and more things will be automated, but how does that relate to increase in salaries? It should do, because productivity goes up, but that's not what has happened in the past 30 years - where productivity across the board has shot up, but salaries for the 99% has hardly budged once you take inflation into account.

With robots becoming so good, even labour in deepest Africa is going to be more expensive, and so there are going to be a lot of people twiddling their thumbs, however talented they might be. The result will probably be global unrest.

We need to rethink our capitalist model, to a model that is sustainable on a finite planet.

Original comment

Certainly more and more things will be automated, but how does that relate to increase in salaries? It should do, because productivity goes up, but that's not what has happened in the past 30 years - where productivity across the board has shot up, but salaries for the 99% has hardly budged once you take inflation into account.

With robots becoming so good, even labour in deepest Africa is going to be more expensive, and so there are going to be a lot of people twiddling their thumbs, however talented they might be. The result will probably be global unrest.

We need to rethink our capitalist model, to a model that is sustainable on a finite planet.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1284 days ago)

" how does that relate to increase in salaries?" As salaries become too high, employers look for cheaper alternatives. The Walmart close to my house has 5 self-service lanes where you can checkout yourself. Why would Walmart do that other than to save money in employee expenses.

I'm not talking about automating the jobs of the 1%, just the 99%. It does not matter how much productivity goes up., This is where you and others think salaries should increase. However, the increase in productivity has little to do with employees working harder than it has to do with the employer investing in newer technologies to make the employees able to do more work in less time.

The implementation of the ATM allows for many more transactions to be processed for each bank. Does that mean once the banks paid for those machines, the tellers that are left should immediately get a salary increase because more transactions are done? Of course not because the tellers are still doing the exact same job as before.

Yes that capitalist model has some problems but it is the best system we have so far. It is sustainable on a finite planet. Perhaps you need to look at the root case of the problem and fix it there. For example, maybe you could make it illegal for the poor people that cannot afford to feed themselves from having children. You should be able to afford children before you have any.

I have no pity on people who work in a minimum wage job for 20 years and are surprised when their employer doesn't increase their wage. If you want more money, you need to increase your responsibilities and/or skills. Don't expect your employer to gve you extra money because you chose to keep the same job forever. Do something with your life. If you're unable to do anything more than hold a sign at the edge of the road, then that's all you deserve.

Original comment

" how does that relate to increase in salaries?" As salaries become too high, employers look for cheaper alternatives. The Walmart close to my house has 5 self-service lanes where you can checkout yourself. Why would Walmart do that other than to save money in employee expenses.

I'm not talking about automating the jobs of the 1%, just the 99%. It does not matter how much productivity goes up., This is where you and others think salaries should increase. However, the increase in productivity has little to do with employees working harder than it has to do with the employer investing in newer technologies to make the employees able to do more work in less time.

The implementation of the ATM allows for many more transactions to be processed for each bank. Does that mean once the banks paid for those machines, the tellers that are left should immediately get a salary increase because more transactions are done? Of course not because the tellers are still doing the exact same job as before.

Yes that capitalist model has some problems but it is the best system we have so far. It is sustainable on a finite planet. Perhaps you need to look at the root case of the problem and fix it there. For example, maybe you could make it illegal for the poor people that cannot afford to feed themselves from having children. You should be able to afford children before you have any.

I have no pity on people who work in a minimum wage job for 20 years and are surprised when their employer doesn't increase their wage. If you want more money, you need to increase your responsibilities and/or skills. Don't expect your employer to gve you extra money because you chose to keep the same job forever. Do something with your life. If you're unable to do anything more than hold a sign at the edge of the road, then that's all you deserve.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1284 days ago)

Our capitalist model is unsustainable, actually whether on a finite planet or not. Just continue the trend (of replacing human labour with machines) to its ultimate conclusion (a world with all work done by robots), and it is obvious why it's unsustainable. Robots don't spend money. Humans won't have money because they won't be working. If the 1% are the only humans left with money, then who's buying the products that are making the 1% rich?

A sustainable form of capitalism requires the flow of money. If money is on a one-way ticket from the poor to the superrich, at some point, the money runs out. Therefore capitalism is economically flawed over the long-term.

Having a smaller population doesn't solve the problem because robots will out-compete humans in every respect and therefore be more cost-effective.

Today robots outperform everything a human can do physically. Robots outplay the best human chess players. With AI moving forward in leaps and bounds (e.g. Google's Deep Mind), humans need to be smart, otherwise we will be outsmarted by the very robots we create.

I think we need a variation of capitalism that incentivises for the well-being of people, rather than the well-being of bank accounts. Any ideas?

Original comment

Our capitalist model is unsustainable, actually whether on a finite planet or not. Just continue the trend (of replacing human labour with machines) to its ultimate conclusion (a world with all work done by robots), and it is obvious why it's unsustainable. Robots don't spend money. Humans won't have money because they won't be working. If the 1% are the only humans left with money, then who's buying the products that are making the 1% rich?

A sustainable form of capitalism requires the flow of money. If money is on a one-way ticket from the poor to the superrich, at some point, the money runs out. Therefore capitalism is economically flawed over the long-term.

Having a smaller population doesn't solve the problem because robots will out-compete humans in every respect and therefore be more cost-effective.

Today robots outperform everything a human can do physically. Robots outplay the best human chess players. With AI moving forward in leaps and bounds (e.g. Google's Deep Mind), humans need to be smart, otherwise we will be outsmarted by the very robots we create.

I think we need a variation of capitalism that incentivises for the well-being of people, rather than the well-being of bank accounts. Any ideas?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1284 days ago)

i have an idea ... actually.... i heard about this ideea some people are having BASIC INCOME LINK and there's also this LINK . Prof Guy Standing LINK . Debate on Al Jazeera LINK

Original comment

i have an idea ... actually.... i heard about this ideea some people are having BASIC INCOME LINK and there's also this LINK . Prof Guy Standing LINK . Debate on Al Jazeera LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1283 days ago)

Thanks for those links. I'm embarrassed that I didn't know anything about the universal basic income. On the face of it, I think it's a really good idea. I think the consequences are very difficult to predict with any confidence. The Swiss are soon to have a referendum on whether to implement a universal basic income. I hope it works well, then we can do it here.

Original comment

Thanks for those links. I'm embarrassed that I didn't know anything about the universal basic income. On the face of it, I think it's a really good idea. I think the consequences are very difficult to predict with any confidence. The Swiss are soon to have a referendum on whether to implement a universal basic income. I hope it works well, then we can do it here.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1283 days ago)

keeping my fingers crossed

Original comment

keeping my fingers crossed

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1284 days ago)

here's why capitalism doesn't work and the proposed solutions, by Thomas Piketty :

""The solutions – a top income tax rate of up to 80%, effective inheritance tax, proper property taxes and, because the issue is global, a global wealth tax – are currently inconceivable."" ;

original source LINK

Original comment

here's why capitalism doesn't work and the proposed solutions, by Thomas Piketty :

""The solutions – a top income tax rate of up to 80%, effective inheritance tax, proper property taxes and, because the issue is global, a global wealth tax – are currently inconceivable."" ;

original source LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1283 days ago)

Like I said earlier, capitalism is the best system out there and we should continue to use it until something better comes up. Socialism and Communism do not work. When you have redistribution of wealth, you end up with a bunch of lazy people spunging off the hard workers.

Who wants to live in a society where all your earnings go to the same pool and anyone and everyone can withdraw whatever they want. I work hard and want to keep the majority of my hard workings. If I knew my earnings would just end up going to the same place as the guy delivering pizzas, I wouldn't work as hard as I do today.

Some people think that the rich should pay more taxes but I have to ask why? Just because they have more money? Is that really fair? Taxes are to pay for the services provided by the government such as national defense and the legislative branch to make and enforce laws. The rich do not get additional national defense or immunity from laws or different laws so they should pay the same amount. It would be like asking the rich to pay more for their groceries just because they have more money but receive the exact same food as everyone else.

Some notable countries that fell due to socialism is the USSR, Rome, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Yugoslavia.

Original comment

Like I said earlier, capitalism is the best system out there and we should continue to use it until something better comes up. Socialism and Communism do not work. When you have redistribution of wealth, you end up with a bunch of lazy people spunging off the hard workers.

Who wants to live in a society where all your earnings go to the same pool and anyone and everyone can withdraw whatever they want. I work hard and want to keep the majority of my hard workings. If I knew my earnings would just end up going to the same place as the guy delivering pizzas, I wouldn't work as hard as I do today.

Some people think that the rich should pay more taxes but I have to ask why? Just because they have more money? Is that really fair? Taxes are to pay for the services provided by the government such as national defense and the legislative branch to make and enforce laws. The rich do not get additional national defense or immunity from laws or different laws so they should pay the same amount. It would be like asking the rich to pay more for their groceries just because they have more money but receive the exact same food as everyone else.

Some notable countries that fell due to socialism is the USSR, Rome, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Yugoslavia.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1283 days ago)

actually, capitalism doesn't work as you say it does

LINK

Original comment

actually, capitalism doesn't work as you say it does

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1283 days ago)

Welcome to the first rung on the ladder of reform. The first step is to accept that capitalism is unsustainable, which it seems you've just done.

The next step is to question some basics. Since we (humans) create our economic systems, we should ask: What is the purpose of an economic system? Is it to create as much money as possible? Or maybe to improve the lives of as many people as possible?

What do you think is the purpose of an economic system?

Original comment

Welcome to the first rung on the ladder of reform. The first step is to accept that capitalism is unsustainable, which it seems you've just done.

The next step is to question some basics. Since we (humans) create our economic systems, we should ask: What is the purpose of an economic system? Is it to create as much money as possible? Or maybe to improve the lives of as many people as possible?

What do you think is the purpose of an economic system?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1282 days ago)

"The first step is to accept that capitalism is unsustainable, which it seems you've just done." You may want to re-read my message because I said nothing that should have led you to think I agree with your comment.

"What do you think is the purpose of an economic system?" The process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region. Simple dictionary definition. Do you disagree with that purpose?

Original comment

"The first step is to accept that capitalism is unsustainable, which it seems you've just done." You may want to re-read my message because I said nothing that should have led you to think I agree with your comment.

"What do you think is the purpose of an economic system?" The process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region. Simple dictionary definition. Do you disagree with that purpose?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1282 days ago)

My comment was about capitalism being unsustainable, and you came back with "capitalism is the best system out there and we should continue to use it until something better comes up". How else am I supposed to read that, other than you agree that capitalism is unsustainable?

I asked for the purpose of an economic system, not the process, ie. what do you want the outcome to be. For me, I want a system that benefits as many people as possible. How about you?

Original comment

My comment was about capitalism being unsustainable, and you came back with "capitalism is the best system out there and we should continue to use it until something better comes up". How else am I supposed to read that, other than you agree that capitalism is unsustainable?

I asked for the purpose of an economic system, not the process, ie. what do you want the outcome to be. For me, I want a system that benefits as many people as possible. How about you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1282 days ago)

If you said "the sky is green" and I gave you a response that said "the majority of cars run on gas," does that mean I agreed with you that the sky was green? You are reading into things if you do and that might be one of your problems with understanding some of these basic concepts.

Capitalism is sustainable. Maybe it would be best to have more competition by having more small businesses instead of a few large ones. The government does try to prevent monopolies by regulating some mergers. A current debate going on right now is the Time Warner/Comcast proposed merger. Many people think the merger should be blocked but I fear the regulators will let it happen because there is sufficient competition out there in the oligopoly market. Competition is healthy for capitalism and having a few mega companies inhibits this competition.

Once a company becomes so large that their production costs are so small, it becomes harder for new small businesses to enter the same market to compete. It would require an extremely large expenditure from a large number of investors to afford the infrastructure to compete with some of the current large companies. This is the only issue I find with capitalism and regulators do help with this problem by breaking up large companies like AT&T into 7 individual companies.

Regarding your question about who the economic system should benefit, I believe the people who benefit the most are those that put the most effort into it. Those people with little or no motivation should have little or no benefit in the economic system.

Original comment

If you said "the sky is green" and I gave you a response that said "the majority of cars run on gas," does that mean I agreed with you that the sky was green? You are reading into things if you do and that might be one of your problems with understanding some of these basic concepts.

Capitalism is sustainable. Maybe it would be best to have more competition by having more small businesses instead of a few large ones. The government does try to prevent monopolies by regulating some mergers. A current debate going on right now is the Time Warner/Comcast proposed merger. Many people think the merger should be blocked but I fear the regulators will let it happen because there is sufficient competition out there in the oligopoly market. Competition is healthy for capitalism and having a few mega companies inhibits this competition.

Once a company becomes so large that their production costs are so small, it becomes harder for new small businesses to enter the same market to compete. It would require an extremely large expenditure from a large number of investors to afford the infrastructure to compete with some of the current large companies. This is the only issue I find with capitalism and regulators do help with this problem by breaking up large companies like AT&T into 7 individual companies.

Regarding your question about who the economic system should benefit, I believe the people who benefit the most are those that put the most effort into it. Those people with little or no motivation should have little or no benefit in the economic system.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1282 days ago)

OK, so you're not of the first rung to reform, but your foot twitched, which is a good start. At least you accept that companies can be too big and that better regulation is needed.

Just explain to me how capitalism (at least the variation we are talking about known as corporatism) is sustainable, when robots don't spend money, and when robots/automation will replace more and more jobs at all skill levels.

And if you believe our economic system should benefit those who put most effort in, then a nurse should earn more than a CEO. So by your standards, our economic system is flawed. How do you suggest we change that?

Original comment

OK, so you're not of the first rung to reform, but your foot twitched, which is a good start. At least you accept that companies can be too big and that better regulation is needed.

Just explain to me how capitalism (at least the variation we are talking about known as corporatism) is sustainable, when robots don't spend money, and when robots/automation will replace more and more jobs at all skill levels.

And if you believe our economic system should benefit those who put most effort in, then a nurse should earn more than a CEO. So by your standards, our economic system is flawed. How do you suggest we change that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1282 days ago)

I don't know what you mean by corporatism. Any size business, small or large, can become a corporation. It depends on the structure of the business and if it's owned by more than one investor or a single person. Many individually owned companies become corporations for the protection they provide since they are separate entities from the people owning the company.

I explained about the robots already. The problem is with the minimum wage constantly increasing and companies losing incentives to hire locally and to hire real people instead of deploying technology solutions. When the salaries are required to be too high because of government controls, it becomes cheaper to outsource to another country or to create a machine to do the job of the human.

Eventually if robots become so intelligent they can do the jobs of everyone on this planet (including repairing the robots and creating new robots), then we will enter a new age. We came from the stone age, through the bronze age, into the industrial age, up through the space age, and we are currently into the information age. What's next is up to technology and where it will take us. Nobody knows what the next age will be until we get there but I look forward to it. Unfortunately it will probably occur after I'm already dead.

Regarding a nurse earning more than a CEO, you missed the point again. Society puts a value on each job and that's based upon supply and demand. Few people are qualified for the CEO job that the recruiting pool is very small so they need to attract high talent by offering competitive salaries. If they don't, some other company will hire the qualified candidate and you will miss out on that opportunity to snag your preferred CEO.


Let's put a hypothetical situation into this conversation to see how you would answer this. Say, for example, that the CEO of Walmart dies or retires and the board of directors need to replace that person. They look for qualified people and determine Larry Ellison, the current CEO of Oracle, would be a prime candidate to run Walmart for them. In your opinion, how much money do you believe Walmart would have to offer Mr. Ellison before he would consider leaving Oracle to work for Walmart? Once you come up with the correct answer to this question, you will finally understand why CEO pay is what it is. Also understand that Walmart will not put an advertisement in the local paper for that job and accept resume's from the general public because they already have a short list of qualified candidates in mind.

Original comment

I don't know what you mean by corporatism. Any size business, small or large, can become a corporation. It depends on the structure of the business and if it's owned by more than one investor or a single person. Many individually owned companies become corporations for the protection they provide since they are separate entities from the people owning the company.

I explained about the robots already. The problem is with the minimum wage constantly increasing and companies losing incentives to hire locally and to hire real people instead of deploying technology solutions. When the salaries are required to be too high because of government controls, it becomes cheaper to outsource to another country or to create a machine to do the job of the human.

Eventually if robots become so intelligent they can do the jobs of everyone on this planet (including repairing the robots and creating new robots), then we will enter a new age. We came from the stone age, through the bronze age, into the industrial age, up through the space age, and we are currently into the information age. What's next is up to technology and where it will take us. Nobody knows what the next age will be until we get there but I look forward to it. Unfortunately it will probably occur after I'm already dead.

Regarding a nurse earning more than a CEO, you missed the point again. Society puts a value on each job and that's based upon supply and demand. Few people are qualified for the CEO job that the recruiting pool is very small so they need to attract high talent by offering competitive salaries. If they don't, some other company will hire the qualified candidate and you will miss out on that opportunity to snag your preferred CEO.


Let's put a hypothetical situation into this conversation to see how you would answer this. Say, for example, that the CEO of Walmart dies or retires and the board of directors need to replace that person. They look for qualified people and determine Larry Ellison, the current CEO of Oracle, would be a prime candidate to run Walmart for them. In your opinion, how much money do you believe Walmart would have to offer Mr. Ellison before he would consider leaving Oracle to work for Walmart? Once you come up with the correct answer to this question, you will finally understand why CEO pay is what it is. Also understand that Walmart will not put an advertisement in the local paper for that job and accept resume's from the general public because they already have a short list of qualified candidates in mind.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1282 days ago)

The LA Times ran its first robot-written news article during the recent LA quake LINK Most trading of stocks today is done by computers at the speed of light. A typical design team requires less people today than it did yesterday because of "mundane" technology improvements such as better computers and 3D printing. Technology doesn't just replace, it also makes people more productive so less people are needed to achieve the same results. And this applies to almost every industry, from the bottom to the top.

You keep veering back to the minimum wage, as if "high" wages are the source of our economic woes. McDonald's expansion plans are not hindered by the minimum wage, they are hindered by people's inability to eat even more shit.

The fact that there are already more people than jobs available, means that there will be people, however much effort they put in, who will never work. Don't get me wrong, I love technology. But this is the consequence of progress. We need to be smart and anticipate what's coming. I quite like the Universal Basic Income as a way to solve some of these problems.

Regarding the nurse vs CEO - I asked you who should benefit from our economic system, and you said those who put in most effort. Now you're talking about supply and demand. Supply and demand is the process. I'm asking you what outcome you want from our economic system, not how it should or does work.

This is important because our economic system is designed by us. It is not handed down from God, or built into the laws of nature. So unless we know what we want, we can't improve what we have. I want an economic system that benefits as many people as possible. Today we have a system that benefits hugely a tiny minority of people. What do you want?

Original comment

The LA Times ran its first robot-written news article during the recent LA quake LINK Most trading of stocks today is done by computers at the speed of light. A typical design team requires less people today than it did yesterday because of "mundane" technology improvements such as better computers and 3D printing. Technology doesn't just replace, it also makes people more productive so less people are needed to achieve the same results. And this applies to almost every industry, from the bottom to the top.

You keep veering back to the minimum wage, as if "high" wages are the source of our economic woes. McDonald's expansion plans are not hindered by the minimum wage, they are hindered by people's inability to eat even more shit.

The fact that there are already more people than jobs available, means that there will be people, however much effort they put in, who will never work. Don't get me wrong, I love technology. But this is the consequence of progress. We need to be smart and anticipate what's coming. I quite like the Universal Basic Income as a way to solve some of these problems.

Regarding the nurse vs CEO - I asked you who should benefit from our economic system, and you said those who put in most effort. Now you're talking about supply and demand. Supply and demand is the process. I'm asking you what outcome you want from our economic system, not how it should or does work.

This is important because our economic system is designed by us. It is not handed down from God, or built into the laws of nature. So unless we know what we want, we can't improve what we have. I want an economic system that benefits as many people as possible. Today we have a system that benefits hugely a tiny minority of people. What do you want?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1282 days ago)

You should finally admit that Elizabeth Warren is a stupid fool for thinking that the minimum wage should keep up with productivity because it's not the employees that are working harder but it's the technology investment of the employer that allows for those employees to accomplish more. I think I'm finally getting through to you.

Don't you agree that the wage increases are a major cause of inflation and what causes companies to go offshore to get work done for cheaper? And don't you agree it's why companies deploy technology to replace workers? This is why I keep mentioning it.

I don't believe each employer should pay a living wage. That should depend on how difficult the job is, the responsibilities of it, how much education is required, and the skills required. It also depends on how many people are qualified, available, and willing to do that job.

What is your definition of a living wage anyway? Do you feel that a single mother working at McDonalds should be paid enough to support herself, 3 children, their college education, pay for a mortgage on a $250,000 house, pay for all the electric, water, sewage, trash, cell phone, cable TV, car payment, and health care? Or do you think it's reasonable for that cashier job to pay enough for a single person to continue living with their parents or that same person to live with a few friends that share expenses where they rent an apartment, drive a clunker car, split the utilities, and do not have a cell phone?

A nurse's skill is not as difficult as you might think. By the way, in the USA we have different levels of nurses from an LVN, RN, MSN, and Nurse Practicioners. They have different requirements for each level. Some just clean bed pans and change sheets. Some can administer medication and higher levels can prescribe medications. They all get paid different salaries. None of those people are qualified to run a multi-national company that employs 200,000 people. You obviously have little respect for the job of a CEO and probably think you could easily do that job so that's why you think they get paid too much. Well, that's why I'm here to help you understand. Those high paying CEO jobs are harder than you think and a board of directors will not just hire a random person off the street to do that job. Even still, if you took the CEO's salary out of the picture, that extra money would not go into the pockets of the minimum wage janitor. It would go into the pockets of the investors. So please try to understand how large companys work because it's more complex than you think.

Original comment

You should finally admit that Elizabeth Warren is a stupid fool for thinking that the minimum wage should keep up with productivity because it's not the employees that are working harder but it's the technology investment of the employer that allows for those employees to accomplish more. I think I'm finally getting through to you.

Don't you agree that the wage increases are a major cause of inflation and what causes companies to go offshore to get work done for cheaper? And don't you agree it's why companies deploy technology to replace workers? This is why I keep mentioning it.

I don't believe each employer should pay a living wage. That should depend on how difficult the job is, the responsibilities of it, how much education is required, and the skills required. It also depends on how many people are qualified, available, and willing to do that job.

What is your definition of a living wage anyway? Do you feel that a single mother working at McDonalds should be paid enough to support herself, 3 children, their college education, pay for a mortgage on a $250,000 house, pay for all the electric, water, sewage, trash, cell phone, cable TV, car payment, and health care? Or do you think it's reasonable for that cashier job to pay enough for a single person to continue living with their parents or that same person to live with a few friends that share expenses where they rent an apartment, drive a clunker car, split the utilities, and do not have a cell phone?

A nurse's skill is not as difficult as you might think. By the way, in the USA we have different levels of nurses from an LVN, RN, MSN, and Nurse Practicioners. They have different requirements for each level. Some just clean bed pans and change sheets. Some can administer medication and higher levels can prescribe medications. They all get paid different salaries. None of those people are qualified to run a multi-national company that employs 200,000 people. You obviously have little respect for the job of a CEO and probably think you could easily do that job so that's why you think they get paid too much. Well, that's why I'm here to help you understand. Those high paying CEO jobs are harder than you think and a board of directors will not just hire a random person off the street to do that job. Even still, if you took the CEO's salary out of the picture, that extra money would not go into the pockets of the minimum wage janitor. It would go into the pockets of the investors. So please try to understand how large companys work because it's more complex than you think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1282 days ago)

Errr… I think you replied to the wrong comment. You've just gone totally off topic. Never mind, I'll just repeat the last bit. We design our economic system. I want an economic system that benefits as many people as possible. Today our economic system benefits hugely only a tiny minority of people. What do you want?

Original comment

Errr… I think you replied to the wrong comment. You've just gone totally off topic. Never mind, I'll just repeat the last bit. We design our economic system. I want an economic system that benefits as many people as possible. Today our economic system benefits hugely only a tiny minority of people. What do you want?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1282 days ago)
Latest comment:

I'm not a religious person but OH MY GOD! You cannot be serious that you don't see how I addressed every one of your issues from the comment I replied to? If not then I have lost all hope for you.

Regarding what I want out of our economic system, that's simple. I want to earn a wage that compensates me for the skills, education, talent, creativity, and value I bring to an employer. Then I want to be able to spend that wage on myself, friends, and family or whatever I choose. I do not want my money taken out of my control and given to lazy people that can work but decide not to for whatever reasons. I don't want to subsidize people's wages because they decided to do the bare minimum job for 20 years and have 3 kids. That's what I expect out of our economy.

Original comment
Latest comment:

I'm not a religious person but OH MY GOD! You cannot be serious that you don't see how I addressed every one of your issues from the comment I replied to? If not then I have lost all hope for you.

Regarding what I want out of our economic system, that's simple. I want to earn a wage that compensates me for the skills, education, talent, creativity, and value I bring to an employer. Then I want to be able to spend that wage on myself, friends, and family or whatever I choose. I do not want my money taken out of my control and given to lazy people that can work but decide not to for whatever reasons. I don't want to subsidize people's wages because they decided to do the bare minimum job for 20 years and have 3 kids. That's what I expect out of our economy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Pop-up cards designed by Peter Dahmen
Pop-up cards designed by Peter Dahmen
God, heaven and dirt
God, heaven and dirt
Human puppet
Human puppet
Seth Meyers - Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and systemic sexism
Seth Meyers - Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and systemic sexism