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.
originally posted by: beezzer
Okay pork chops!
We've isolated the issue.
Poor woman, working 4 jobs, died.
But focusing on Reagan, lower taxes, economics of the 80's is like having a person come into the ER bleeding from the abdomen.
Some are arguing to put bigger and bigger bandages on the wound.
Others are blaming the knife.
No-one is looking at ways to STOP THE BLEEDING!
So gee golly!
What are your brilliant suggestions, ATS?
originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
Automation makes labor less and less required in our world today
originally posted by: eManym
I always considered low wage unskilled service jobs as starter jobs for those moving into the job force or older workers using that type of employment to supplement their retirement. Apparently many are choosing these types of jobs as a career choice.
It surprises me that these workers are demanding wages that entry level skilled workers make.
For people that work these jobs that have the opportunity to better themselves, why don't they have the motivation to raise their standard of living?
I understand the economy is bad but for someone working four jobs, it wouldn't last long because sleep deprivation has its problems.
originally posted by: kosmicjack
originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
Automation makes labor less and less required in our world today
That statement right there is why we better sort this # out...because in the not too distant future, there won't be a need for even low wage employees. Just as soon as *any* worker can be replaced by a robot. - they are.
Then what?
You are mistaken. There is a hidden 8% social security tax not shown on every paycheck. Social Security is a way of taking away 16% of everyone's money and then giving it back 40 years later at 0% interest. I'm not sure how someone could be considered "helped" by that. Its very obviously a scam that involves extortion and racketeering when done by anyone except Uncle Sam.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
Yep. Between SS and Fed Tax, comes to about 14.4% of each pay check.
Depending on your wage, that can add up to quite a bit of money that one would have, if it were not being taken out.
For my wife, that would be 2 weeks of food (for a family of 4), or several tanks of gas in the car, or a large chunk of say, the power bill.
Certainly someone on minimum wage could most certainly use that money back in their paycheck.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
are you sure you are not mistaking revenue with profit...profit means just that...
I'm talking about the bottom line on the income statement, net profit from operations (revenues minus expenses).
What you don't see is the balance sheet, the liabilities that have to be carried in order to make those profits.
It's no different from your net paycheque. What you take home is what you've "profited" from earned income (minus deductions). But then you take that net pay, deposit it into your bank account, and have to turn around and pay your creditors from it (car loan, mortgage, etc), so what you're actually left with in the bank at the end of the day is far less than what you "profited".
Businesses are no different.
Businesses have to pay creditors, shareholders, dividends, etc out of those net profits. Those costs of doing business do not show on the income statement.
Just like how your car loan payment doesn't show on your paystub, neither do the creditors of business operations.
So if your functioning with a very low profit margin, you may find yourself struggling to pay your creditors even though you're showing a profit each year.
People see "50 billion profit" and think: "Holy crap that company is making a ton of money, those greedy bastards !"
So no, profit is not just profit... there's a lot more going on than just what you're seeing in dollars or share values.
I'm not trying to defend the greed of some corporations, I'm just clarifying some things for those who may not understand the true meaning of the numbers they're looking at.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: pikestaff
originally posted by: beezzer
I think one of the things we need to do is phase out Social Security.
Put the onus of retirement on the backs of the people who are actually going to retire.
If that safety net isn't there, people will focus on what they are actually making/spending/saving/earning and plan for their own darned futures instead of relying on government.
Social security is paid for from the tax paid by the workers, did you do economics at school?
Yeee-ees, I am aware of that. (rolling eyes)
What's your point?
Get rid of Social Security and the "worker" will automatically HAVE MORE MONEY!
originally posted by: beezzer
I think one of the things we need to do is phase out Social Security.
Put the onus of retirement on the backs of the people who are actually going to retire.
If that safety net isn't there, people will focus on what they are actually making/spending/saving/earning and plan for their own darned futures instead of relying on government.
The old “9 to 5” work week is becoming about as obsolete as the American Dream.
A new Gallup poll finds that economically-stressed Americans are now working an “average” of 47 hours, with a growing number clocking 60 hours or more.Adults employed full time in the U.S. report working an average of 47 hours per week, almost a full workday longer than what a standard five-day, 9-to-5 schedule entails. In fact, half of all full-time workers indicate they typically work more than 40 hours, and nearly four in 10 say they work at least 50 hours,” said Gallup, based on their 2014 Work and Education survey.
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: jimmyx
This isn't about the gas in the car although that's what killed her. Its about the Bilderbergers causing the death of a hard working woman. It is sad but its hard to understand what the 4 jobs and the Bilderbergers had to do with it. (sarc intended)
And by the way.....the op said "particularly for women".....what the heck does that have anything to do with?
originally posted by: beezzer
Back to my original post then, we are focusing on the wrong thing.
While it is tragic that people have to work service-related jobs and may die trying to work all of them, we need to alter our focus on WHY there are ONLY service-related jobs out there.
I offered losing Social Security as an option to place more money in people's pockets.
Not met with much success.
The point is, "government" has been in control forever and has done a crap job of being our leader and representative.
Why run to them when they (government) are the ones responsible for creating the mess in the first place?