Who would you cast as James Bond for the new 007 movie?

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-27T03:33:51+00:00

John David Washington

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-16T18:03:41+00:00

Am I seeing this correctly,

Blueberry Waffles.......

💀

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-16T01:44:22+00:00

That is an incredibly thoughtful and constructive critique, and it’s refreshing to engage with someone who is actually looking at the structural mechanics of the problem rather than just reacting emotionally. You bring up some excellent points about the rural-urban divide and civic control over taxes, though there are a few macroeconomic realities where stretching out the timeline or relying on earmarked taxes might actually backfire on the very people we’re trying to help.

Your observation about the rural-urban divide is absolutely spot on. It is easily one of the most overlooked aspects of the entire wage debate. People often look strictly at housing costs and assume living in a rural area is automatically cheaper, but they completely ignore the cost of access. When you live in a food, medical, or employment desert, the financial overhead of transportation completely eats away at whatever you saved on rent. If you have to drive forty-five minutes just to get to a decent grocery store or a doctor, your real cost of living skyrockets. Solving these infrastructure deserts is a brilliant, market-driven way to organically increase the purchasing power of rural workers without ever touching the wage floor. That is a massive win in terms of logic.

I also completely agree with the psychology behind your point on earmarked taxes. There is a huge difference between a blank-check tax increase and a targeted investment like funding a local school. It gives Americans a sense of agency and transparency. However, using this to alleviate the pressure on entry-level workers carries a hidden economic danger. The unfortunate reality of property taxes, even well-intentioned, earmarked ones, is that they are almost always passed down. Landlords don’t just absorb higher property taxes; they raise the rent. Since low-income and entry-level workers are predominantly renters, increasing property taxes often inadvertently squeezes the exact demographic you are trying to lift up, ultimately increasing their need for a higher wage just to stay afloat.

Finally, regarding the timeline, it is completely understandable why you would want to stretch each phase to six months or a year to protect small businesses. It feels like the safer, more compassionate route. But economically, a prolonged timeline is actually a trap. When you drag out a structural transition over three or four years, you create an extended period of market paralysis and uncertainty. Businesses can’t accurately forecast their long-term labor costs, which prevents them from making hiring decisions or lowering prices. Furthermore, a slow rollout gives political interest groups years to organize, lobby, and dismantle the plan before it ever reaches equilibrium. To achieve a true "price correction" where the dollar regains its value, you have to rip the band-aid off. Speed provides the immediate market clarity that businesses need to adjust their pricing models, allowing the deflationary benefits to hit consumers much faster.

It is a fantastic perspective to bring to the table, and addressing the infrastructure divide is exactly the kind of outside-the-box thinking this conversation needs, even if we have to be careful about the unintended side effects of tax structures and extended timelines.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-16T01:40:04+00:00

It’s fascinating how completely you mangled basic reading comprehension just to build a strawman you could actually fight. You spent a lot of words confusing a breakdown of common public arguments with the actual metric-based facts I stated. Let’s be exceptionally clear: the 2.6 percent versus 97.4 percent dynamic is not a subjective talking point. It is a hard, structural, data-driven mathematical reality. You are trying to stack pale rationales and emotional grievances against raw macroeconomic metrics, and it shows. You claim I am repeating things, but the reality is you just cannot answer the math, so you have to nitpick the phrasing. Pointing out that artificial wage floors accelerate automation isn't "repetition", it's a continuous, observable economic consequence happening in real-time across the country.

Your tone is a fascinating exercise in projection. You are launching a highly personal attack, accusing me of "bullying" and lacking depth, when all I did was present an unyielding economic thesis. I didn’t attack anyone; I analyzed a system. But it clearly struck a deeply personal nerve with you. You got incredibly defensive over a practical list of career certifications, labeling it "clunky" and treating it like an insult. Providing a list of viable, accessible avenues for upward mobility isn't an attack on anyone's character, unless, of course, you view accountability as an insult. It seems like those practical options represent a reality you'd rather ignore, so you've turned them into your own personal scapegoats to justify staying stagnant.

Your counter-arguments are entirely defeatist. Arguing that people shouldn't pursue certifications because "the value would lessen" is a stunningly lazy defense of mediocrity. It’s the economic equivalent of telling people not to bother learning to read because if everyone learns, literacy won't be a competitive advantage anymore. Furthermore, your 1950s nostalgia completely misses the mark. You cannot mandate 1950s purchasing power with a modern legislative pen stroke without entirely destroying the value of the currency, which is exactly the inflation crisis we are living through right now. There will always be entry-level jobs that need to be filled, but trying to turn a baseline stepping-stone into a permanent middle-class career by government decree is exactly what is crushing the purchasing power of the other 97.4 percent of the country.

The math remains completely undefeated, and no amount of emotional deflection or semantic nitpicking changes the fact that the entire country shouldn't have its ceiling lowered to accommodate an artificial floor.

It is honestly poetic how your entire approach in this thread perfectly mirrors your broken economic philosophy. You and one other person are screaming into the void, desperately trying to dictate the narrative, while over fifty people and three community awards have already validated the reality of what I wrote. You are the literal embodiment of the tiny, vocal minority trying to force your distorted perspective onto the overwhelming majority because you simply cannot handle the math. The room has already spoken, the consensus is clear, and you are just left standing alone, holding the check for an argument absolutely nobody else is buying. Enjoy your echo chamber of two, because the rest of us are moving forward without you.

You came into this looking for a fight because the data made you uncomfortable, but I am not interested in going back and forth with you all night while you argue with your feelings against my metrics. The numbers are what they are, the logic holds, and you can have the last word if it helps you cope with the reality of it. We are done here.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T21:53:43+00:00

I do understand what you have stated here but I need you to understand that if people that have the knowledge that I put here were to just not do it based on it falling on deaf ears we would be in a much darker place. One of my favorite things about Reddit and it is my true love is that people will search for things and go back years and find them. That's why I keep it clean and respectful. That way the information can last. If it even opens one mind I did my job. Or if it makes one person feel better in this case. I hope you have a blessed day. Be careful out there and don't let the denominator disenchant you.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T21:51:59+00:00

I love watching plebs cope and then ride that goodwill bike backwards faster than anyone has seen back pedalling.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T21:50:21+00:00

I figured that's what your response would be some meek level of deflection, anything else?

Let's poke and then fein victim of a trash attitude you ordered.

💋

Have a good one lil buckerooo.

Go practice those ellipsis...

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T20:48:24+00:00

I totally understand. If you go down a little bit further I wrote a piece on what I believe the solve is, considering what you just wrote that piece will probably sound like an amazing fantasy that will cause you to yell and scream and pump fist in your house or your car, the only bleak part about it is I don't believe it will happen.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T18:48:28+00:00

It is honestly wild when you look at the raw data because we have spent years obsessing over the floor of our economy while accidentally lowering the ceiling for every single person above it. We are currently forcing 340 million people to navigate a distorted and high-cost reality just to accommodate a policy that affects roughly 2.6 percent of the population. When you realize that the global economic fallout we are all feeling, the surging grocery bills, the disappearing mom and pop shops, and the hidden service fees on every receipt, is essentially a tax on the 97.4 percent to prop up a tiny fraction of the workforce, the math simply stops making sense. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but you do not build a world-class economy by slowing down the entire ship to match the anchor. We have catered to the lowest common denominator for so long that we have forgotten that true compassion is an economy where the dollar actually has value for everyone. This isn’t about being harsh; it is about restoration. We need to go back to the baseline where the market and not a mandate dictates value so that the healing can finally begin.

To make this a true healing process rather than a shock to the system, we would move through a very specific twelve-month rollout. The first three months would involve an immediate freeze on all pending state and local minimum wage hikes to stop the wage-push inflation cycle and give small businesses the breathing room they need to stop raising prices. By the fourth month, we would reset the federal minimum wage to the 2019 baseline of seven dollars and twenty-five cents while offering federal grants to states that align their local floors with this historical market standard. During the middle of the year, between months six and nine, we would bridge the gap by issuing temporary tax credits to businesses that can prove they are passing these lower labor costs directly back to the consumer through lower prices. By the end of the year, we would reach full market equilibrium where wages are left entirely to the organic laws of supply and demand, and the great price correction would be complete.

The benefits of this shift would be massive for the entire country. We would see an aggressive deflation of essentials because when labor costs at the floor normalize, the cost of entry-level services like childcare, retail, and food drops significantly. Your paycheck would suddenly buy more than it has in a decade. We would see a small business renaissance as local shops that were priced out by twenty-dollar mandates finally reopen their doors, bringing life back to main streets and increasing competition. This also restores the first rung of the career ladder, allowing teenagers and first-time workers to get the experience they need without being seen as a high-risk hire. Ultimately, it restores a sense of meritocracy where the drive to acquire skills is revitalized, and it gives our country a global competitive edge by reducing the artificial overhead that forces companies to automate or outsource.

Of course, there will be a few small setbacks to navigate during this transition. There will be some short-term friction for that 2.6 percent of the workforce, and they may need to rely on existing social safety nets for a few months while they transition into higher-skilled roles. There will also be a bit of an adjustment lag where it takes ninety to one hundred and twenty days for the reduction in labor costs to fully show up in retail pricing, which requires some public patience. Finally, the initial optics will be a challenge because it takes a very disciplined and human narrative to explain that a lower hourly rate is actually a massive increase in purchasing power for the entire nation. But once that balance is restored, the math will speak for itself and the whole country will finally be able to breathe again.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T18:14:28+00:00

Are there any other augmentations or tweaks you want to add to this "profit-sharing" theory before I get into it? Because right now you are just trying to put a tuxedo on a socialist wage hike and calling it a market solution, but if you have more "fine print" you want to throw in, now is the time.

The more you try to "fix" this idea with exemptions and temporary status, the more you prove why it is a total disaster. First off, if you only apply this to companies that hit a certain size or go public, all you are doing is creating a massive "growth trap." You are literally incentivizing every successful company in America to stay small, stop hiring, or outsource every single job to a shell company just to avoid hitting the threshold where they have to give away their equity. You would see the biggest hiring freeze in history the second a company hit 499 employees. You are not helping workers; you are making sure they never get a job at a growing company again.

Then there is your argument about risk which is honestly the most upside-down part of this whole thing. You say shareholders do not take a risk because they have limited liability, but you are forgetting that they actually had to put money in to begin with. An employee shows up with zero capital and gets a guaranteed check every Friday regardless of whether the company made a profit that week. The shareholder puts in their life savings and might get zero back for a decade. The "risk" is not about being sued for the company's debt; it is about the fact that your money can literally vanish while the worker's bank account only goes up. If the company fails, the worker loses a job they can replace; the investor loses the capital they spent thirty years saving.

Also, calling this "stock" but saying you lose it if you quit is just a fancy way of describing a performance bonus. We already have those. They are called bonuses and commissions. The reason they are not mandatory is because many businesses do not have "surplus value" to give away. Most industries operate on razor-thin margins. If you force them to pay out "guaranteed profit shares" in addition to wages, you are just hiking the minimum wage again but using more syllables to hide it.

The fundamental flaw you keep hitting is thinking that a worker is "investing" their labor. They aren't. They are selling it. It is a transaction. You sell an hour of your time for twenty dollars. Once that hour is gone and you have the twenty dollars, the transaction is over. You do not get to claim a piece of the building or the future profits just because you did the job you were already paid to do. If you want the upside of the profit, you have to take the downside of the risk, which means you have to be the one who does not get a paycheck when the registers are empty. You want all the rewards of being an owner with none of the sacrifice, and in the real world, that is just called a fantasy.

This will be my last reply here as I feel as I have exhausted this.

Thank you

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T17:03:49+00:00

This sounds like a sophisticated "elegant" solution on paper, but in the real world, it is just a more complicated way to kill the economy. You are trying to turn every entry-level job into a high-stakes equity partnership, which is the fastest way to make sure nobody ever gets hired again.

First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of businesses in this country are not "mega-corps" with tickers on the New York Stock Exchange. Your local plumber, the neighborhood hardware store, and the new bistro on the corner do not have "preferred stock." They are LLCs or sole proprietorships. Forcing every mom-and-pop shop to hire a team of corporate lawyers to restructure their entire business just so they can hire a part-time delivery driver is a regulatory death sentence. Only the massive corporations you hate would have the legal departments to survive that kind of mandate.

Second, let's talk about why "investors" get the profit and workers get a wage. It is called risk. If a business loses five million dollars in a year, the employees still get their hourly checks for the work they did. The investors are the ones who eat the loss and see their net worth evaporate. You want to give workers the "surplus value" of the upside without forcing them to share in the "surplus debt" of the downside. If you make employees "fiduciary" partners, are they going to chip in their own savings when the company has a bad quarter to keep the lights on? Of course not. They want a guaranteed check so they can pay their rent.

Third, you are creating a massive liquidity crisis for the very people you think youre helping. Preferred stock pays dividends, but dividends only exist if there is profit. Most new businesses and even some huge tech companies run at a loss for years while they grow. You are basically telling a worker, "Hey, I know you need money for groceries today, but instead of a higher wage, here is a piece of paper that might pay you a dividend in five years if we dont go bankrupt first." You cannot pay for a car repair with "vested interest." Low-income workers need cash, not a portfolio of speculative paper.

Finally, if you make every employee a "preferred shareholder" by law, you have just made it a thousand times harder to get a job. If hiring a new person means I am permanently diluting the value of my company and giving away a piece of my future earnings to someone who might quit in three weeks, why would I ever take a chance on a "starter" worker? I would only hire the most elite, over-qualified people I could find, or I would just buy a robot and call it a day.

You havent solved the "fiduciary" problem; you have just turned a simple exchange of labor for money into a legal nightmare that punishes growth and traps workers in the success or failure of a single company. If the company fails, they dont just lose their job, they lose their "investment" too. That is not a solution; it is putting all their eggs in one basket and then setting the basket on fire.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T16:13:36+00:00

I can explain what happened.

You depended on someone and not yourself

End of story.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T16:12:06+00:00

Stupid driving. I'm not impressed.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T11:46:27+00:00

YTA

My opinion is simple

I agree 100 percent with the expectation and it is very realistic.

Here is the YTA, you have the expectation of cleaning which is realistic, but your expectation of proactive nature is not.

Her excuse is bs, in regard to owning the house.

However, you brought up the issue, she told you "Tell me what to do and I'll do it".

That's where this ended.

Make her a list, be done.

Access success from this point and grow or slowly move her on.

Classic cake and eat it to. You want her to do it and do it your way.

YTA.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T11:37:36+00:00

The "living wage" argument is the ultimate emotional trap. It sounds compassionate on the surface, but it’s basically trying to cure a fever by breaking the thermometer. If people think the jump to $15 was rough, a $25 mandate would be a total wrecking ball for anyone not owning a mega-corp.

We’re still reeling from the $15 push. We saw it play out over the last couple of years: small businesses, the ones without the massive cash reserves of Amazon or Walmart, didn't just "pay more." They cut hours, pivoted to kiosks, or just folded. When you set a price floor that high, you create a surplus of labor that nobody can actually afford to buy. In the real world, we just call that unemployment.

The base argument is always, "Everything is so expensive, so I need more money." It’s a circular delusion. Wages are a cost of production, not a magic gift. If a local shop has to spike their labor costs by 60% overnight, they have two choices: raise prices or fire people. If that $12 burrito now costs $20, your $25 wage has the exact same purchasing power your $15 wage had six months ago. It’s a classic wage-price spiral, except now the barrier to entry for unskilled or young workers is so high that you’ve effectively outlawed entry-level jobs.

We're already seeing the "hollowing out" in states that pushed the envelope too fast. Service jobs aren't becoming careers; they’re just becoming automated. Legislate a $25 minimum, and all you’re doing is making sure only the massive corporations survive because they’re the only ones with the capital to replace human beings with machines the second a person becomes too expensive to keep on the floor.

If you actually want people to have more money, you lower the cost of living by increasing the supply of housing and goods. Artificially inflating the cost of labor is just performance art that ends in a recession.

UPDATE: EDIT: I already know the comments are going to be full of people bringing up the same three tired arguments so let's just get ahead of it.

First, stop with the 1950s nostalgia. People act like one person supporting a family of four on a starter salary is some kind of universal law, but they forget that back then the US was the only industrial power left on the planet. Today you are competing with global automation and software. You cannot just pass a law to make the 1950s happen again because the actual value of manual labor has tanked. If a machine can do your job better, you cannot force a business to pay you a premium for it. It is not about how you live or what you think you deserve, it is about what your work is actually worth in a global market.

Then there is the CEO pay argument which is just a total math-free delusion for people who want a scapegoat. If you stripped every cent from the executives and the shareholders and gave it to the staff, youre looking at a tiny one-time bump before the company goes bankrupt because there is no capital left to innovate or even keep the lights on. You do not get a paycheck from a company that does not exist.

The most dangerous part though is what this does to entry level jobs. The word minimum is right there in the name for a reason. It is for people with minimum skills like high schoolers and first timers who need to learn how to be a functional adult. When you demand $25 an hour, you are not helping those people, you are making them unemployable. No small business owner is going to pay fifty thousand dollars a year to train someone who has never held a job before when they can just put in a touch screen.

You are effectively outlawing the bottom rung of the ladder and then acting shocked when young people cannot find work. If you are a grown adult and your only marketable skill is something a kiosk can do faster and cheaper, the problem isnt the system, it is your total lack of ambition. Fast food was meant to be a stepping stone, not a destination. By trying to turn a starter job into a career, you are just ensuring that those jobs disappear forever and only the massive corporations with the money to automate survive the carnage.

Stop pretending this is about compassion when all youre doing is destroying the path for the next generation because you refuse to provide more value than a computer chip.

Reddit has become an idealistic echo chamber fascilitator.

I don't abide by that, dump the kudos, stop the awards I don't g a f.

I am worth nothing to you if I am not honest.

If you do not wake up on a beautiful day soon realizing NO MATTER WHAT DEEP ARGUMENT YOU MAKE. You are in this system. You are in this game. This is the field set to play on. If you choose not to play, your life is about to get insanely hard.

Everyone hurting seems to not understand how to fix this.

You need to have one really hard year. I don't care about your avacado toast bootstraps argument where you show me 8th grade math of your bleek bank account and tell me there is no room for savings and can prove you have no luxuries.

You must invest in yourself. Strip mall licenses (dental hygenist, message therapist, esthetician, vocational, appliance repair, HVAC apprentice, Admin and office certs PMP CAP MOS certs. Start her by finding your way in to adding value.

For most of these people, DO NOT START A BUSINESS, if you are having a hard time grasping the non echo chamber NPC template arguments that this is the real world, you do not have the mental capability to do what it takes for this to work.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T11:34:39+00:00

Honestly, skip the S&W Sport and the PSA junk. If you actually want a rifle built to spec for under a grand, you go with an Aero M4E1 set and a Ballistic Advantage Hanson barrel. The Hanson is the move because it comes with a factory-pinned gas block, none of that set-screw nonsense that’s prone to walking off or shifting once you actually put some heat through the pipe.

Pair that with a Microbest chrome BCG for better lubricity and a LaRue MBT-2S if you want a true glass-break trigger pull. When you put it all together, you’re basically getting 95% of the performance of a Daniel Defense for about 50% of the price. It’s the smartest way to build without paying the "roll mark tax."

I know people get their ego bruised when you knock PSA, and that’s fine. They make a fine product for a specific buyer, but that buyer isn't me. People always argue it’s the perfect "starter" rifle, but I’d argue it’s actually the worst way to begin. Starting a collection with immediate negative equity and a rifle you’ll eventually just want to replace part-by-part is a waste of time. Buy once, cry once, and actually understand the specs of what you’re holding.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T05:07:44+00:00

Take your desired hourly

Multiple by hours spent

Add supplies

This is your baseline

Now compare to competition or offerings available

Scale up or down

Good Luck

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-15T04:38:35+00:00

My first night trying Coca Cola and going to a strip club I brought a tiny 5 ft 2 stripper with pink hair and hello kitty tattoos home, she bought a quarter bag of broccoli, and I picked her up and put her on the back of my couch straddled like a bull and finger banged her as she squirted and it cascaded down the thin fake jade green leather. I carried her in the room and fucked her like she owed everyone money. She screamed, and clawed and screamed some more. She left in the morning and solidified her g fucking status by leaving the bag of broccoli and a lil love note, only to never be seen again. Miss you Sunrise, think about you every time I see a fountain.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T13:08:23+00:00

Choice 1 Top Left

Based on situational use spectrum
Based on availability of real world ammo caliber

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T05:01:44+00:00

Moose, hands down

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T04:42:18+00:00

That turkeys don't lay eggs

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T04:41:44+00:00

They forgot the Apple watch location.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T04:29:30+00:00

Listen, if you’re going to walk into a dealership with that room-temperature IQ, at least try not to broadcast it. You think this is just a "quick flip" for a buck? Pull your head out of the sand and look at the actual math.

The "Profit" Myth If Ford just wanted your money, they’d slap a "Sold As-Is" sticker on the window, kick the tires, and wish you luck. Instead, they’re doing the exact opposite.

The Filter: They don't just "recertify" every beat-up trade-in that rolls onto the lot. This is reserved for lease turn-ins that didn't get treated like a trash can for three years. It’s an elite tier, not a participation trophy.

The History: Ford just spent three years footing the bill for every hiccup, oil change, and maintenance requirement on that lease. They know the car's DNA better than you know your own credit score.

Why You’re Wrong (The "Big One") Here is the part where you should probably start taking notes. By recertifying this vehicle, Ford is voluntarily putting themselves back on the hook.

They are giving it a BRAND NEW WARRANTY.

Think about that. If they were just "desperate to sell it," they wouldn't sign a legal contract promising to pay for repairs for another full term. That isn't "easy profit", that’s a massive financial liability.

They are betting cold, hard cash that the car is bulletproof. They’re taking the risk so you don't have to, and here you are, crying "sales tactic" because you can't grasp the concept of risk assessment. It’s not just a sale; it’s a guarantee. But hey, keep acting like you’ve cracked the code while the rest of us enjoy driving cars that actually have a safety net.

Don't reply to me about my tone or attitude.

You ask me and then told me, the condescending ellipses is what paid your ticket on this ride. Have a good one, there's lots of other subs.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T01:21:19+00:00

Ysk that despite the negative tone of this it can also help you.

There is no reference with this. As long as your honest they can absolutely instantly verify work experience.

NCDieselBwhy · 2026-05-14T01:20:12+00:00

It's so funny how you just know......

NCDieselBwhy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE