It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Isolationism Is America's Answer

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Inspiteof, what about all of the AMERICAN jobs that are being outsourced to foreign nations? You think that we, as Americans, benefit from that? Nah, I don't think so.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Then the people don't have to work from the international corporations, or borrow from international banks. As long as there's no coercion, it's beneficial.

Additionally, you make a silly assumption - a mistake that was made during the days of mercantilism that let to a variety of problems. That is, that wealth is some set, finite figure. That couldn't be further from the truth - trade generates wealth (it's common sense if you think about it).

Unless you're FORCING everyone to work for a company, then it is free trade, and perfectly helpful.



Now, outsourcing was brought up. Protectionism makes sense if you don't understand the cause or what's really happening. But once you do, it's just another way to damage our economy and wage war on our lower class (it would comparable to genocide).

One problem is taxes and anti-business laws - things like minimum wages. Our taxes, at the moment, are far too high. But even through this, our economy isn't doing badly at all.

This is all great and all, but the bigger issue is simply that outsourcing is not a problem. Cheaper jobs are shaved because people don't want to work for such low salaries - but people in developing nations need the work badly, so they will. As a result, we get goods more cheaply. We all have more money, and are relatively richer, leaving us free to invest in other things. Our economy is boosted as a nation by an influx of goods that are produced more cheaply than we would do ourselves. New jobs are created, replacing and exceeding any that are lost.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike


This is all great and all, but the bigger issue is simply that outsourcing is not a problem.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Johnmike]


Hmmm... ????



Whatever the product, there is an effort to ship it outside America to cheaper labor. The effects of this are hurting many aspects of Americans’ industrial and personal lives. It doesn’t matter what you are making, whether you manufacture low- to high-tech products, maintain technology support call centers, write code or create the next generation of microprocessor chips: Outsourcing is affecting American industry and it will only become a larger issue.

We used to think that high-tech jobs were safe from the outsourcing vacuum. It was those nasty metal, rust belt jobs that we were depleted of. It was also thought that America would always be the high-tech job of the future. This is no longer the case. By the latest count, America is losing more than 2,000 jobs a day, across every field -- from manufacturing to engineering and software design positions -- due to outsourcing. I think that number is an underestimate since it’s unclear if it accounts for the other support jobs that are also affected by technology or manufacturing layoffs.
Yes, it is.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
You can link to a site. Great. It doesn't mention any statistics other than that "2,000 jobs a day" figure. It offers no source for that number.

Your linking that site must have been a joke or something I didn't catch on to.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 



Why would I be joking?



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
By the way, John, why must a source have a source?
I ama media communications student and I have done plenty of research papers in my day, and few sources cite a source for their information, very few.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I don't know. I don't understand what contribution that site could make to your argument. It makes some claims, but that's about it. Nothing to back either you or itself up.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
This will never happen because the military will not be able to use fancy words like force projection or being able to test out new weapon systems on people. They are not building all those aircraft carriers,subs, and other massive weapon platforms in order to live in a shell like a turtle. We will have our finger up everyones ass before it's over with. It's sad but our military has a very large ego and they like killing and blowing sh** up.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
It isn't a source, really. It says "2,000 jobs a day" and doesn't say where it came from. I'm sure they writers of that site didn't go around calling every single company in the United States every single day to come up with that figure. They must have gotten it from somewhere - and it needs the source of the data.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
John, that's a legitimate criticism..
I'm not trying to be short with you; I was just trying to figure out what made you think I'd be joking about something that I view as very important in regards to the future of this country.

I have said it time and time again,I am in the same category as Ross Perot.. I think NAFTA was a mistake and I think all of this outsourcing in general is a mistake for America.. I'm not sure that there is much that you, or anyone else, can say to change my opinion on the matter, really. You can try, but I can't guarantee you that I will agree.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
This will never happen because the military will not be able to use fancy words like force projection or being able to test out new weapon systems on people. They are not building all those aircraft carriers,subs, and other massive weapon platforms in order to live in a shell like a turtle. We will have our finger up everyones ass before it's over with. It's sad but our military has a very large ego and they like killing and blowing sh** up.


Our military? So, you think our military personnel are romping around the world by choice?
No, they are doing that because that is what they are ordered to do.. I suggest you start from the top and work your way to the bottom when playing the blame game. Starting at the bottom and working your way to the top isn't really accurate..



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Then the people don't have to work from the international corporations, or borrow from international banks. As long as there's no coercion, it's beneficial.


International corporate finance does not buy the people of thrid world counties out of their land, and at a fair price to boot. They buy it from the governments, and terms most favorable to them, so long as those in power are protected and their interests are looked after. THe people have no choice but to work at subsistence wages, in terrible and unsafe conditions, with no health care or education to speak of. THey go home to shanty towns and slums while their land and labour are sold at rock bottem prices.

"Great concentrations of wealth create great concentrations of poverty"*



Additionally, you make a silly assumption - a mistake that was made during the days of mercantilism that let to a variety of problems. That is, that wealth is some set, finite figure. That couldn't be further from the truth - trade generates wealth (it's common sense if you think about it).

That may be, but the wealth created by the trade rarely is delivered into the hands of those that produced the goods. The wealth their labour and resources created is taken by multi-national corporate finance and re-distributed into theit pockets. "Wealth does not trickle down, it is cphyoned up"*


Unless you're FORCING everyone to work for a company, then it is free trade, and perfectly helpful.

So, how are the citizens of the philipines doing now that free trade has set up those business zones? What happened to all those people that used to work the land those zones now occupy? Or those that used to fish the shore frontage now owned by foreign capital, being used as a transport hub?



One problem is taxes and anti-business laws - things like minimum wages. Our taxes, at the moment, are far too high. But even through this, our economy isn't doing badly at all.

Are you actually saying minimum wages are a bad thing?
Minimum wages was a hard won victory for the forces of democracy, just as the eight hour work day. Are you actually saying a company should have the legal right to pay its workers 18 cents an hour?!?


This is all great and all, but the bigger issue is simply that outsourcing is not a problem. Cheaper jobs are shaved because people don't want to work for such low salaries - but people in developing nations need the work badly, so they will. As a result, we get goods more cheaply.


Companies dont outsource jobs so they can produce more goods cheaper, and then pass the savings on to the consumer. They outsource jobs because it means one more dollar for them!


New jobs are created, replacing and exceeding any that are lost.

What new jobs are created? The manufacturing sector of the Western economy is primarily middle class. How can an economy produce new jobs to staff the largest Class of the US? What other line of work could possbile support them?

You've bought completely into the Voodoo economics of the Reagan/Bush days


*= Quote by Michael Parenti

[edit on 28-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
International corporate finance does not buy the people of thrid world counties out of their land, and at a fair price to boot. They buy it from the governments, and terms most favorable to them, so long as those in power are protected and their interests are looked after. THe people have no choice but to work at subsistence wages, in terrible and unsafe conditions, with no health care or education to speak of. THey go home to shanty towns and slums while their land and labour are sold at rock bottem prices.

Then the problem is what you say it is - their governments. That's no excuse for blaming poverty on corporations. They need to fix their economic system.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
"Great concentrations of wealth create great concentrations of poverty"*

That's hilarious. Let's all be poor so that there's no more poverty.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
That may be, but the wealth created by the trade rarely is delivered into the hands of those that produced the goods. The wealth their labour and resources created is taken by multi-national corporate finance and re-distributed into theit pockets. "Wealth does not trickle down, it is cphyoned up"*

That reeked of communism. Are you, by any chance, a communist?
The "wealth of their labor" is paid through wages. Why doesn't a company pay higher wages? Simple - because the wages they're being paid are already higher than any they could get without that corporation. The company can pay far better than poor, local markets, due to government mismanagement. The company has no reason to pay higher wages because there's nowhere else the people could go - without it, they would starve.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So, how are the citizens of the philipines doing now that free trade has set up those business zones? What happened to all those people that used to work the land those zones now occupy? Or those that used to fish the shore frontage now owned by foreign capital, being used as a transport hub?

You'd have to give me specific examples. If there's a transport hub, there are more jobs than fishing can give, and more wealth and fishing can generate. I'm only going by what you've said.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Are you actually saying minimum wages are a bad thing?

Yes. A terrible thing.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Minimum wages was a hard won victory for the forces of democracy, just as the eight hour work day.

To the contrary.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Are you actually saying a company should have the legal right to pay its workers 18 cents an hour?!?

Yes.

See, the biggest people who suffer due to the minimum wage are those whose skills aren't worth what the minimum wage in. Instead having a poorly paying job, people have no job and, instead, starve to death. It's one of the most anti-low class laws we have. This also includes teenagers, whose unemployment skyrocketed after enacting minimum wage laws.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Companies dont outsource jobs so they can produce more goods cheaper, and then pass the savings on to the consumer. They outsource jobs because it means one more dollar for them!

Have you read anything on economics? Or even thought about it? That's such preposterous thinking I can't believe that you would say it. Then why do you suppose we import things from China?
They're competing to deliver goods more cheaply than the next guy, which is why we buy from them. Prices aren't fixed, and if one company doesn't take advantage of their ability to deliver lower-cost goods, another will, and they'll go out of business.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
What new jobs are created? The manufacturing sector of the Western economy is primarily middle class. How can an economy produce new jobs to staff the largest Class of the US? What other line of work could possbile support them?

There isn't one field that an entire class is employed in.
Just shows how much study you've done.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You've bought completely into the Voodoo economics of the Reagan/Bush days

Haha. I suppose you're a supporter of Josef Stalin? Or maybe, if you don't like violence, Karl Marx?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Then the problem is what you say it is - their governments. That's no excuse for blaming poverty on corporations. They need to fix their economic system.


Absolutly the government is to blame for its part in the whole shebang, but blaming the government for their part doesnt absolve the corporate giants from their part.



That's hilarious. Let's all be poor so that there's no more poverty.

Thats not at all what was said or implied. We all dont need to be poor so that everyone can eat, we just need to stop amassing such giant fotunes.




That reeked of communism. Are you, by any chance, a communist?

No, but i certainly am anti-capitalist.


The "wealth of their labor" is paid through wages.

Marx said it best, "Capitalism is dead labour." Capitalism does not produce wealth, wealth is created from two things, 1) nature (IE natural resources like metal, timber, food) and 2) the labour used to cultivate nature. Capitalism simply expropiates the wealth from those that produced it, and cuts them whatever slice they deem necessary.


Why doesn't a company pay higher wages? Simple - because the wages they're being paid are already higher than any they could get without that corporation.


You seem to be under the impression that poverty is an original condition in the Thrid World, this couldnt be further from the truth. Many thrid world countries were de-industrialized by first world imperial powers. Take for instance India. India used to export more finished textiles to britan than vice versa. Untill britan rolled in with their gun ships and de-industrialized the textiles centers of daca and madress and forced the people to raise the raw cotton.

The point? Most Thrid world nations had population support commensurate of their population size untill Imperialist powers decimated them, artificially converting them to poverty. They didnt need giant corporations to pay them 18 cents an hour to work a cotton field, they needed the land used by that cotton field to grow food.



The company can pay far better than poor, local markets, due to government mismanagement. The company has no reason to pay higher wages because there's nowhere else the people could go - without it, they would starve.

If they would have all starved, then how did they survive for so long before imperialist penetration?



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So, how are the citizens of the philipines doing now that free trade has set up those business zones? What happened to all those people that used to work the land those zones now occupy? Or those that used to fish the shore frontage now owned by foreign capital, being used as a transport hub?

You'd have to give me specific examples. If there's a transport hub, there are more jobs than fishing can give, and more wealth and fishing can generate. I'm only going by what you've said.




Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Are you actually saying minimum wages are a bad thing?
Yes. A terrible thing.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Minimum wages was a hard won victory for the forces of democracy, just as the eight hour work day.

To the contrary.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Are you actually saying a company should have the legal right to pay its workers 18 cents an hour?!?

Yes.

It sounds like you'd be right at home in the 1890's



See, the biggest people who suffer due to the minimum wage are those whose skills aren't worth what the minimum wage in. Instead having a poorly paying job, people have no job and, instead, starve to death. It's one of the most anti-low class laws we have. This also includes teenagers, whose unemployment skyrocketed after enacting minimum wage laws.


If peoples lives were so much better with no minimum wage laws, then why did those same people agitate for such a law?


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Companies dont outsource jobs so they can produce more goods cheaper, and then pass the savings on to the consumer. They outsource jobs because it means one more dollar for them!



Then why do you suppose we import things from China?

Because its cheaper for the importing company. That doesnt mean that those savings are passed on to the customer.




There isn't one field that an entire class is employed in.
Just shows how much study you've done.


Of course there isnt one single field, but the manufacturing industry certainly employed a hell of a lot more middle class US citizens than any other.



Haha. I suppose you're a supporter of Josef Stalin? Or maybe, if you don't like violence, Karl Marx?


I dont support either, though Marx's critique of Capitalism has certainly come true.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

I dont support either, though Marx's critique of Capitalism has certainly come true.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Inspiteof,well, the problem with capitalism is that it tends to lead to fascism which, almost invariably, leads to a dependent socialist state. That is where America has been headed for the last 35 years...

[edit on 29-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Absolutly the government is to blame for its part in the whole shebang, but blaming the government for their part doesnt absolve the corporate giants from their part.

Well if it was a free market economy that worked correctly, then the corporate giants wouldn't be doing damage.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Thats not at all what was said or implied. We all dont need to be poor so that everyone can eat, we just need to stop amassing such giant fotunes.

So let's be less rich so that everyone can eat? This makes no sense. Wealth that is invested does plenty of good.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Marx said it best, "Capitalism is dead labour." Capitalism does not produce wealth, wealth is created from two things, 1) nature (IE natural resources like metal, timber, food) and 2) the labour used to cultivate nature. Capitalism simply expropiates the wealth from those that produced it, and cuts them whatever slice they deem necessary.

Oh, man. You're actually quoting Marx. You can't have read any modern economic books.

Marx was, simply, an idiot. The fact that you would say this, and simplify it so much, shows that you have no knowledge of economic theory. Even the Keynesians aren't that oblivious.
Simply, you've completely ignored supply and demand. Without it, your economy collapses. Capitalism delivers goods to where they're most needed. That's why new companies are formed - there's a demand. The new company increases supply and competes with other companies to deliver the goods in the best and most efficient way possible.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You seem to be under the impression that poverty is an original condition in the Thrid World, this couldnt be further from the truth. Many thrid world countries were de-industrialized by first world imperial powers. Take for instance India. India used to export more finished textiles to britan than vice versa. Untill britan rolled in with their gun ships and de-industrialized the textiles centers of daca and madress and forced the people to raise the raw cotton.

Poverty is relative. If we lived like the late Roman Republic did, it would be poverty today.
You have to understand that imperialism is a dangerous thing. Fueled by the theory of mercantilism, it does nothing but destroy the country that is imperialized. It's, simply, evil. Trading with a country is far more efficient than forcing your will on them like that.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
The point? Most Thrid world nations had population support commensurate of their population size untill Imperialist powers decimated them, artificially converting them to poverty. They didnt need giant corporations to pay them 18 cents an hour to work a cotton field, they needed the land used by that cotton field to grow food.

Well imperialism did, of course, damage things. That's common sense.
But you can't make the assumption that they were really wealthy by our standards. Or are, without any international interference.
If a corporation is forced to play by the same rules as everyone else, as in a free market, then you don't have a problem. But you do when you get into corporatism - that is, government support of the corporation. And in that case, the government is at fault.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If they would have all starved, then how did they survive for so long before imperialist penetration?

They didn't. Do you know what population growth is? Have you looked at any population graphs?

I don't think so, since that would be doing research.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So, how are the citizens of the philipines doing now that free trade has set up those business zones? What happened to all those people that used to work the land those zones now occupy? Or those that used to fish the shore frontage now owned by foreign capital, being used as a transport hub?

You'd have to give me specific examples. If there's a transport hub, there are more jobs than fishing can give, and more wealth and fishing can generate. I'm only going by what you've said.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
It sounds like you'd be right at home in the 1890's

Thanks.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If peoples lives were so much better with no minimum wage laws, then why did those same people agitate for such a law?

Why did people vote for Hitler? Why did people support communism? How did Stalin come into power? Why do so many people want social programs we can't afford without raising taxes?
Because it sounds nice. People don't fully understand the consequences of things.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Because its cheaper for the importing company. That doesnt mean that those savings are passed on to the customer.

But it means it can be done - and if prices are lowered by one company, and not the rest, the cheaper company will dominate the market. This is common sense - think it through.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Of course there isnt one single field, but the manufacturing industry certainly employed a hell of a lot more middle class US citizens than any other.

Too vague. I don't have a paper here telling me all the answers, so I do all research myself.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Well if it was a free market economy that worked correctly, then the corporate giants wouldn't be doing damage.

And where is this perfect free market operating? What countries?


So let's be less rich so that everyone can eat? This makes no sense. Wealth that is invested does plenty of good.

Where in the third world has Foreign capital invested for the betterment of a country?



Oh, man. You're actually quoting Marx. You can't have read any modern economic books.

Marx was, simply, an idiot. The fact that you would say this, and simplify it so much, shows that you have no knowledge of economic theory.

Economic theory and economic practice are two very different things.
Please by all means, enlighten me as to what part of my previous



Poverty is relative. If we lived like the late Roman Republic did, it would be poverty today.

Your right, it is. But that isnt a refutation of my previous stance.


You have to understand that imperialism is a dangerous thing. Fueled by the theory of mercantilism, it does nothing but destroy the country that is imperialized. It's, simply, evil.


I do understand and agree in full with the above.


Trading with a country is far more efficient than forcing your will on them like that.

You know, i think you and I agree on more than either of us would like to admit. Trading with a country, on terms most favorable to you, is far more efficient than direct colonial rule.

My question to you is, what good is democratic freedom without economic freedom?



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
The point? Most Thrid world nations had population support commensurate of their population size untill Imperialist powers decimated them, artificially converting them to poverty. They didnt need giant corporations to pay them 18 cents an hour to work a cotton field, they needed the land used by that cotton field to grow food.



Well imperialism did, of course, damage things. That's common sense.

Ok.


But you can't make the assumption that they were really wealthy by our standards. Or are, without any international interference.

I agree in full. They werent wealthy by our standards, but they lived at a level that was comensurate to their needs. They didnt live in shanty towns and slums. They had jobs outside of criminal activities and prostitution, and outside of slave labour.


If a corporation is forced to play by the same rules as everyone else, as in a free market, then you don't have a problem.

Where is this practiced in real life in the Third World?



But you do when you get into corporatism - that is, government support of the corporation. And in that case, the government is at fault.

I disagree. Both parties are to blame for their corruption and exploitative policies.




Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If they would have all starved, then how did they survive for so long before imperialist penetration?

They didn't. Do you know what population growth is? Have you looked at any population graphs?


Is it your contention that the Third World did not and could not survive without Wester Foreign Capital Pentration?


I don't think so, since that would be doing research.

I haven't insulted or politically bated you, please, dont do it to me.



Originally posted by InSpiteOf
It sounds like you'd be right at home in the 1890's

Thanks.

I call it like it is. You advocate corporate slave labour, i believe in labour movements. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.




Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If peoples lives were so much better with no minimum wage laws, then why did those same people agitate for such a law?

Why did people vote for Hitler? Why did people support communism? How did Stalin come into power? Why do so many people want social programs we can't afford without raising taxes?
Because it sounds nice. People don't fully understand the consequences of things.


First, you didnt answer my question.

Second Hitler wasnt voted into power, he took state power. Hitler got some 30.1% of the vote (predomantly the rich capitalist class of germans, while Hindenburg got 49.6% of the vote(predomantly the working class and lower.)

Third, people supported communism because their life conditions were terrible and they wanted a change from the autocratic dictatorship that ran their lives. None of the common citizens wanted a retreat back to the Tzarist autocratic system the White guard supported.

Fourth Stalin took power by using soclaist and marxist rhetoric. Stalins reign of undemocratic, unsocialist power represented a defeat for the Russian and Socialist revoltion.

Fifth, (and you acuse me of over simplifying!) people vote for social programs because they have real greivances with the way they are treated in society Womans sufferage, minimum wage, the eight hour work day, and the right to health care and education were social agitations due to legitimate grievances with the way they were treated in society. It has nothing to do with how stupid a population was and frankly, thats just conservative propaganda.




Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Because its cheaper for the importing company. That doesnt mean that those savings are passed on to the customer.

But it means it can be done - and if prices are lowered by one company, and not the rest, the cheaper company will dominate the market. This is common sense - think it through.

Your logic makes perfect sense, but that doesnt mean tahts what happens in real life!

Just because something can be done for the betterment of the world through free trade, doesnt mean it is done.

"The actions differ greatly from the compassionate image thats presented."*




Too vague. I don't have a paper here telling me all the answers, so I do all research myself.


Once again, a baseless acusation. I have no paper in front of me telling me all the answers. I work 9 hours a day.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Inspiteof,well, the problem with capitalism is that it tends to lead to fascism which, almost invariably, leads to a dependent socialist state. That is where America has been headed for the last 35 years...

[edit on 29-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


I agree with the bolded, though it is arguable that captailist and corporate capitalist (corporatism) are two different poltical entities.

However, im sure you know that you and I differ on the opinions of socialism and its fascist ties as I remember a time or two where we have clashed on such an ideal.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
See, the biggest people who suffer due to the minimum wage are those whose skills aren't worth what the minimum wage in. Instead having a poorly paying job, people have no job and, instead, starve to death. It's one of the most anti-low class laws we have. This also includes teenagers, whose unemployment skyrocketed after enacting minimum wage laws.


Ok so you are saying there are people in America that are willing to work but have low skills and end up starving to death because their skills are not up to minimum wage skills?

Let’s see, what skill set is needed for minimum wage? ….NONE for the reason a minimum wage job is minimum wage is because you are TAUGHT the skills needed to do the job. If a job required a needed skill to start it then pay would be above minimum wage. This is very simple logic…

Now if you said that minimum wage reduces the number of job available then I would agree. As example my house in the Philippines has 3 house workers at $40 per month plus room and board. My house in the states has zero because I’m unwilling to pay $300 plus per week per person to have any and so those jobs are not on the market. A small business will go with 2 workers but hell at a buck an hour they will have 20…is this a good thing?


[edit on 29-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

However, im sure you know that you and I differ on the opinions of socialism and its fascist ties as I remember a time or two where we have clashed on such an ideal.


Yes, I do... My opinion remains the same
Look, if you look at how Fascism,Socialism, Communism, all of that crap evolves, you will notice that it all winds up evolving into each other. Fascism eventually evolves into socialism. Socialism eventually evolves into fascism, et cetera.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join