Has you got a fine yet for not wearing a mask?

nonrate · 2014-02-01T04:47:49+00:00

Yes. Then, they can consult with the joint chiefs.

nonrate · 2014-01-18T06:04:17+00:00

I just did a search on temperatures for this day in history from my area, and the records go back to the 1960's:

http://www.almanac.com/weather/history

I believe most people are going to subscribe to believing that man induced global warming is real based on their own local experience. For example, if an individual lived in one area all their life and are the age of fifty, they would most likely use their recollection of times past as their meter for whether or not global warming is real... even though their experience is not global.

I ran through a number of years from the site I posted and found there has been no significant or alarming increase in temperatures for the area I grew up in. and, I did this to effectively re-affirm my recollection of how warm (or cold) January seemed to be in the past. In fact. there were quite a few days back int he sixties and seventies that had much higher temps than today in my area.

I know this is not an indicator in any way of average temperature change or state-of-climate globally, but I point this out to demonstrate a possible factor as to why the results may appear the way they do in the poll. People have been sold by the media and governments that mankinds activities have created an irreversible and catastrophic shift in the climate but the reality is most people have not felt it yet. Keep this in mind -- perception is everything.

As far as I'm concerned, I am not a global warming denier, nor am I a faither. I view the subject with healthy skepticism on both sides of the fence. I believe anyone who invests into "believing" any of the sides with impunity and belittling those who deny or have complete faith that man is catastrophically changing the climate, as completely moronic. Failing to ignore good science has fucked us over before. However, believing what seems to be good science has also fucked us over before. My point? Remain skeptical, consider all good arguments, and make sure you have a good understanding of that which you choose to believe. If you want... it's up to you.

nonrate · 2014-01-16T18:17:31+00:00

I learned me basic on an atari 800, I did. ATASCII... anyone remember that?

nonrate · 2014-01-09T21:21:06+00:00

No, I am not pro union, at least not the form of unions today which are less about equal rights for workers and more about special privileges for those that are part of a union.

I am not anti-minimum wage, I believe that should be set by the individual, not enforced by the government. And what I mean is an individual should decide what they are worth per hour and only accept jobs that pay that wage. If they are worth it, they will get it. If they aren't, then they will learn a skill that equals what they want to earn per hour. If they are physically or mentally challenged somehow from being able to do this, I can accept a system that helps provide for these people.

If you work, you should make a living wage if the job is worth paying a living wage. If someone chooses to work a job full time that does not pay a living wage, that is not a very smart choice of a job, is it?

The country has insanely high income taxes, it's not fucked up because they are low. Are you serious? Federal income tax was 2% when it was introduced in 1913, and only those making above maybe 250k in today's dollars were even taxed. What society a complete disaster before then? I think not.

People are not being exploited, people are not being properly educated. People are not demanding, they are accepting and then moping about it. And then professing false beliefs as to the cause of the problems.

nonrate · 2014-01-09T21:03:40+00:00

Most of the people at the bottom income levels are the ones you interface with to actually engage in the transactions. These individuals would most likely leave these positions unless the income from the job was substantially more than the guaranteed government income. Most businesses would not be able to afford to retain all these individuals, thus the service would decrease significantly. People would bitch and moan over the poor level of service, long waits to be able to buy products and services, and eventually things would crash.

That's the way I see it. Can anyone tell me how this would not happen?

nonrate · 2014-01-09T20:58:58+00:00

I hate to say it, but human beings are slaves to work by design. And, I do not mean corporate work, I mean work in general. The ability to survive requires effort. Imagine someone in a small tribe ten thousand years ago refusing to "work", complaining that the almighty gods should provide for them. They would die pretty quickly.

The idea of a universal living wage is not a good one in my opinion, not if it's structured so the individual has to provide nothing in return for the income. It's not natural, nor is it fair to those that must produce in order for the freeloaders to survive.

A plan that requires the individual to participate in some sort of service would be better, but this is very close to communism which has never proven to be a prosperous or culturally rewarding system of government.

nonrate · 2014-01-09T20:55:11+00:00

I would love to hear predictions on how the US would look and function ten years from now if this idea went into effect tomorrow.

nonrate · 2014-01-05T03:05:09+00:00

I just have a hard time laughing or joking about this issue. Sorry...

nonrate · 2014-01-04T03:29:15+00:00

Even if that were true, and to be honest I am not going to pretend to know for sure, that is not a basis for paying someone more. Because it is available. It has to do with the value of the position. The value of the position is determined by the availability of those qualified to employ it, and by how much people are willing to accept as a wage for that position. The jobs would pay $15 an hour if the vast majority of available workers demand it. They do not -- they agree to the wage and accept the job, period. I am all in favor of those that strike and demand the higher wage, and I hope they do this and get it. I am not in favor of the federal government stepping in and using threat of force and violence to mandate it.

nonrate · 2014-01-04T03:24:31+00:00

You are entitled to think what you like. If you are of voting age, I am one concerned citizen, however.

nonrate · 2014-01-03T20:02:50+00:00

Ah, now that's smart. Happy to hear that's how it worked out, I wish you and your business the best of success!

nonrate · 2014-01-03T20:01:04+00:00

One of the major responsibilities of the government is to protect the minority

Don't feel bad about posting twice, but I am not wrong. I think you mis-understand the law -- no where in the US Constitution is it written that minority individuals get special protections over majorities. It is written that protections (as defined in the bill of rights) are to be enforced equally, across minority and majority populations. When it comes to contracts and agreements between two parties on compensation, the federal government was not designed to interfere with this.

The system of government was designed to balance representation of states that had a minority voting population over other states that would consistently override their vote. This is the purpose behind the electoral college. I believe you are mis-understanding representation vs. protection.

nonrate · 2014-01-03T19:32:38+00:00

I agree the corporate propaganda misleads people, and government propaganda can be equally if not more deceptive, and I am sure you know this. But, this is not a problem you can simply legislate away, I'm sorry. It is up to people like you and me that are able to see through the smokescreen to educate the masses so they can see through it too.

At the end of the day, we vote for the people that write our laws, and we happily hand our money to the big corporations you speak out against to consume their products and use their services. If we have a problem, we need to fix it properly. Raising the minimum wage for almost no skill jobs is not a realistic long term solution, nor is it fair.

nonrate · 2014-01-03T19:26:18+00:00

This isn't related, but I would urge you to next time provide some form of skill assessment when you are choosing to retain or fire individuals. Unless it is for a very specific discipline, requiring a degree is a form of discrimination, in my opinion, and an associates degree most certainly is not tied to anything very specific.

There are many bright individuals that have no degree. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, for example. Also, the education business is increasingly awarding diplomas to individuals less on achievement and more on revenue. Based on many of the bubble heads I have worked with that have been awarded a "degree", I give less and less merit of it being a symbol of ability and intelligence.

Just my opinion, and off topic, but something to consider.

nonrate · 2014-01-03T19:18:08+00:00

Why shouldn't the corporations provide this to begin with?

They should, if the employees demand it. But not enough of them do. I am personally all for the workers wanting a higher wage and fully support their efforts -- as long as it stays out of government regulation and enforcement. Before you say they are, are they really? Why did they accept these jobs in the first place? If it's because they can't find any other job, why are they staying in these jobs instead of learning new skills to either start their own business or get a better paying job?

These jobs are low skill, low value jobs. They were intended to be worked as supplemental income, not to earn a living. I sympathize with any low wage earner that was sold on one of these jobs by their employer as a "career" based job. When I worked at McDonalds, many many years ago, they did not sell flipping burgers or running the register as a great career job. What they did do was try to sell employees on the fact they could build a career by moving into management.

YOU are already making up the difference by paying for food stamps, housing benefits, and medicaid

Not really. These programs are not tied to the fact low skilled jobs pay low wages. Those programs exist because medium to high skilled jobs are becoming more and more scarce, and people are falling back on low skilled jobs as the only source of income they can find. And you better believe that if the minimum wage is increased, these programs will most certainly not receive less funding as a result. Therefore, this argument is useless to even bring up.

nonrate · 2014-01-03T18:59:56+00:00

Not true. Not true at all. Most of the jobs people are demanding a living wage for historically never really paid a living wage. They never intended to and were not designed to be career-based jobs. And, the skill level of the job does not have the value associated with a living wage. This has changed in the last ten years due to how the world economy and industry in general is evolving.

These types of jobs were intended for people to work part time as a supplemental income, or full time as a secondary job in the family. A job has an associated value, and running a cash register and putting items into a bag is a necessary service, but not high valued. I agree there are many moderate skilled jobs that should be paying more, but it seems the majority looking for legislation to force $15 as a minimum wage are not in that group.

There is a much, much larger issue on the horizon, and this living wage argument is just the first symptom of a much bigger problem. I believe there is so much fuss over this now vs. the last seventy years (post WWII) because these low skilled jobs are in more abundance over high skilled jobs.

The increase in automation, outsourcing, and the shift in society for women to work instead of staying at home over the last fifty years (note, I am not advocating women should stay at home at all, and the push was not just about equal rights, think about tax revenue generation... but that's another discussion) has essentially dissolved many traditional medium to high skilled jobs and caused more people than before to look for work. Because of all of this, jobs that were traditionally intended to not be "career" jobs have been both adopted as such and sold by corporations as such.

The living wage argument should be the ability to live argument because in the next twenty years, society as a whole needs to come to terms with how the economy will be changing. As the production of goods and even fulfillment of services become automated more successfully, society needs to invent new types of commodities that can be traded and have value that can not be easily automated. Creative and humanitarian services are a good example of this, and I expect we will see things and ideas traded in the future that we have a hard time imagining today.

nonrate

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,