Yep, because arms are cheaper to train than brains!
Meh, I like the exception I came up with: professional athletes.Not everyone at the top is very smart, nor are the ones at the bottom using their muscle more than their minds. I would say waiting tables leaves you tired and sweaty, but it's plenty of mental maneuvering.
I agree with Hugo 100% all income earning basically comes down to having a skill needed. Be it digging a ditch or brain surgery. The 1st does not require much training but having a strong back and instruction on where to dig. The second requires a lifetime of practice and constant learning but not much of a strong back. Or as a third choice you can be a entitlement whiner who believes no work should be done necessarily to live in what ever lifestyle you desire.
What skill do people whose parents handed them the company possess?
That I can not answer. I defer to your expertise in being supported by parents in adulthood to answer.
We should ask a real expert, like a Walton. Maybe one of them can pencil in an upstanding business owner like yourself.
In general, manual labor pays less and in general those doing manual labor are less capable of better paying careers. It is not always that way. It is that way more often than it the other way, where the very capable man is washing dishes for a living. However the saying does speak to the complain that conservatives often have that suggests that the poor or "too lazy" to better themselves. The poor are often the opposite of lazy and are very dedicated. As one example, I was poor and that described me perfectly. The conservative view of the poor than their condition is completely irrational and would irritate me to no end if I were not so easy going.
I just find it odd that every very rich person I ever knew took long vacations. Seems like the company runs fine without them for weeks at a time.
Hum... do you really mean that Ginx or it's just a joke?
Your entire last comment.I find it odd that you find it odd that rich people take vacations.I also find it odd that you imply that because a company still works fine without them, they must not do much or something like this.
Well, let's see. The average American gets little or no vacation time, and yet I'm led to believe they're so replaceable. Meanwhile, the person making millions, and who I'm told is indispensable, takes off for several weeks a year.You don't see anything odd about the reality of that?
Nope, makes perfect sense.Vacations are a form of salary, so it makes sense that if you are easily replaced you are also less paid and get less vacations.Note that I am not saying it's fair... millionaires definitely get too much for what they actually do, but it makes perfect sense in a capitalist system. That's why I am in favor of a capitalist, free economy, but with some minimum benefits for all.Don't you have a minimum of 2 weeks of paid vacation in the US and some paid holidays?
... minimum...? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!I know people who have 3-5 sick days a year. The end. Some also get called in to work one or both days on the weekend. Those are white-collar jobs. I don't think I even know any laborers... but I know middle-class workers are often screwed.
Note this handy guide.
Ouch... well I don't know why you find it funny. I find it pretty sad.Actually I take that back, I know you were laughing at my comment ;)In any case, do you realize that you just confirmed my point? The problem is not the rich taking vacations. The problem is not strict enough minimum conditions for the poor.In other words, don't you agree then that letting supply and demand dictate the salary and vacation conditions is fine, but we also need regulations to ensure some minimum decent conditions for all?
'none' for the USA!? Wow, it's really that terrible...
If you really want your mind blown, consider that someone working two full-time minimum wage jobs (that's 80 hours a week) makes just over $20,000 a year. That's almost two grand over the poverty line, and you have time to sleep if your commute isn't bad.Hard work: it almost pays.
Oh, but we cannot increase the minimum wage, because that is a socialist act. Letting hard-working people die of starvation is the American way, the American dream, I daresay.
Well, what happens is they don't starve, they go on welfare, that way conservatives can whine about all those lazy poor people who work more over 40 hours a week and are on welfare because they're drug addicted alcoholics who are taking the hard-earned wages of people who spend more time on their yacht and on the golf links than in their office (of course, those executives take business calls during their "time off," but that's mostly so they can write it off as a business expense).
Again... this is yet another example of bad regulation: minimum is too low, especially considering the fact that there are so little services provided by the state in terms of health care and severe lack in education.Don't forget one think though: when someone is working minimum wage it simply means that this person is easily replaceable, so there is no reason to pay them more. You could find somebody else in no time to do the same job.Embrace socialism Ginx; you keep showing that it makes more sense :P
Haha that's funny, I had not seen your comment on socialism before writing mine because I am busy with other stuff so it takes me forever to write a simple comment :)
Bret, We are supposed to want them to work two jobs to be at the poverty line and it's OK if they still starve. This is the American dream. However, they need to put some "skin in the game," while they starve. We cannot allow them to keep that 80hr per week 20k. It wouldn't be right. They need to do their share to keep the American machinery running so there will always be enough surfs to package my caviar for minimum wage also. It is The American Dream. The Great American Dream! Unless you embrace this, you are not a capitalist. Unless you embrace this you are Marxist, a socialist and any other derogatory ist. You don't embrace this economic philosophy, you don’t believe in democracy; and you don't believe in capitalism; and you don't believe in the American Dream, as spec'ed out by the Founders, and you don't believe in America.
I read something in Time recently about this 'American Dream' idea of how capitalism lets everybody has a chance as long as they are willing to take it and work for it.Apparently, the percentage of people who are able to escape the social 'caste' in which they were born is decreasing and as never been lower for... I don't remember how long.In other words, if you are born poor, you will die poor.But again, giving these people high quality affordable education would be anti-american I guess...
Plus, if the rich have all the wealth, they have the capital necessary to produce products... products only they can afford...
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin
Hugo, In other words, if you are born poor, you will die poor. I don't know what the world trend is. In America, I suspect the advantages the poor have is probably trending down. Since the 80's things started going south: states that had democratic gubernatorial offices for more than a century started falling to republicans, such as GA and TX. The House, which had been Democratic held for around a half a century, fell to the republicans and Reagan took office. But your statistic has always been the case, either way. Odd that this makes no sense if the poor are always to blame, and yet many conservatives argue that the poor's lives are mostly what they make them, and we should not consider them "entitled." Instead, we should hold them accountable for things they do not have the skills or talents to control. Then libertarians go one step further with the utterly hypocritical claim that helping them is best left to charities, who are “better at it.” They would have us believe that if we stop collecting a trillion dollars in annual entitlement funds through taxation, charities will pick up the slack. Of course, the only way for this to be possible is if all those taxed forwarded the savings to charities, which the hypocrites making the claims know would not happen.The area of fairness and handling of the poor is, in my opinion, the single weakest position conservatives have. On almost every other issue, I get it, even when I don’t agree. In this case, I honestly believe half of them are lying and the other have are genuine, but only because the topic is way over their heads. I am almost a centrist in many ways, until this topic comes up.
Aw I am doing some cleaning and actually found the Time magazine in which I had read the information.The tile was "The truth about the poverty crisis". Unfortunately, only a small portion is available for free online:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2093321,00.htmlI am not a subscriber myself so I'll just write down this part I found interesting:***[...]tens of millions of middle-income jobs were lost to outsourcing or replaced by technology and salaries became more and more compressed. The average real weekly earnings of a typical blue collar worker are lower today then in 1964. But the poverty problem is also about the fracturing of the American Dream, specifically the dream of upward mobility. It's become increasingly hard for Americans to rise above the socioeconomic status of their birth, particularly compared with their peers in other rich nations. "Poverty is in many ways about a lack of social mobility," says Erin Currier, who studies these topics at the Pew Charitable Trusts. And research shows that even before the current crisis, Americans had much less mobility than people in many European nations.***Sorry no stats though... but they do seem to indicate that it's getting worse unfortunately.
Hugo, That is plenty good enough. Everyone who can improve their economic class, meaning they know how, do. Therefore those who claims the poor simply choose to be poor are goofballs in my opinion. No offense to the goofballs readying this. I mean the other people, not you. One of the wisest men this world has ever spawned put it best when he pointed out that the poor do not Choose Dearth.
Brent may want to retake that elementary math class 80 hours a week at NC min wage of 7.25 = 580 x 52 30160 a little more above the poverty line he claimed.
I didn't even do the math, I just looked up what the yearly salary of the average minimum wage worker was. I guess it's taking into account underemployment.
No, scratch that. I took the average yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker and doubled it. The total I have will have taxes already taken out and includes the fact that the average full-time minimum wage worker doesn't work a full 40 hours a week.
[And I rounded down slightly. I believe the avg. yearly salary of a full-time minimum wage worker in 2010 was just over $10k, but I will double check.]
Brent, backtracking is very unbecoming. Above you claimed a min wage worker working 80 hours a week your words not mine. If you want to revise your statement make it clear. And is your claim above before or after taxes rating of the poverty line ? In either case your example of a 80 hour week at 7.25 per our will exceed the poverty line with ease. 7.25 x 80 = 580 before or after taxes will be more then enough for a single person to live on. Min wage jobs are not meant to make you rich but to keep you working till you earn skills that beget a higher pay scale. I have lived on much less then 580 a week before and after taxers. You may not get all the Pay channels, but you will eat better then ramen on that pay.
Can you at least display the intelligence of getting my name right?
Bret, actually you should take that typo as a compliment I know and like a Brent. Care to explain how 80 hours a week at 7.25 is not above poverty for a single person ? Bret
Here is an oxymoron posted by someone who might qualify as part of that name. " the fact that the average full-time minimum wage worker doesn't work a full 40 hours a week."Is working less then 40 hours a week and being full time like being a little pregnant? To be 40 hours means full time 8 x 5 How are you a full time worker when you do not work full time? Let alone double the hours to be full time ?
Is working less then 40 hours a week and being full time like being a little pregnant? No, it's because hourly workers in the real world don't necessarily have consistent schedules, nor will the places they work utilize them for a full 40 hours a week for one reason or another. It's called "under employment," and it's one of the primary reasons people seek second jobs.
Then according to your own definition they are not full time workers. Hence 40 hours per job. Even though you claim to two 40 hour jobs in your above post. So I guess you either a little pregnant or were a lot wrong not that your self hating self could admit it. Still care to explain how over 30k before taxes is below the poverty line ?
Bret, care to admit your wrong yet? "consider that someone working two full-time minimum wage jobs (that's 80 hours a week) makes just over $20,000 a year."You can not have it both ways. You either work 80 hours and have two full time jobs or you do not. Is that gut on you from being a little pregnant? Since your an out of shape asthmatic internet tough guy I would not expect washboard abs.
The average income after taxes for someone working two minimum wage jobs is just over $20k. They don't work 80 hours a week on average, but some weeks they may work more, because that is the nature of these types of jobs. Two jobs of this kind is more or less the maximum number of jobs a person can take on (barring other home businesses or cottage industries). I phrased it wrong, and left it open to a fool like you to nitpick on semantics, but the fact remains (if reworded), and depending on how many people are in the household, this is actually low enough to be below the poverty line.
Your self hate is so bad you cannot even admit your wrong when the math is clear and your held to your own statement. you used the one person 80 hour equation. But I should expect no less from an unemployed out of shape asthmatic internet tough guy entitlement baby. Again your words I quote "consider that someone working two full-time minimum wage jobs (that's 80 hours a week) makes just over $20,000 a year." What part of that quote am I taking out of context ?
I just saw where you doubletalk back to try and add more then one person. Nice try again your statement was one person working 80 hours a week was below the poverty line not the 30k plus that would earn. I truly hope someday you will develop the testicular fortitude to publish your loathing not behind a pseudonym and a picture of a dog, but with your own name and picture. Then you might be able to be identified from your obituary when you finally succumb to your inability to come to grips with you lack of value as a person. Or at the very least you might have to deal with the consequences of your online bravado in real life, if someone you told off online was to recognize you on the street.
Are you still talking?
HWCOITG,Get a life.
Hey, if this is what he wants to do with his valuable time, it's no skin off my back. I'm just curious what his point is or what his goals are. Maybe he was raped by a liberal as a child...
Or maybe your mother would not nurse you to cause your self worth issues coward. My goal is simple to call you on bullshit when it spews form your pie hole.
A dude without even a link on his screen name should not call others, who have, at least, linked back to something.BTW, I don't get an internet tough guy impression from Gynx at all. I do notice sarcasm at times (a lot). But I like that.All that said: Some of us work in skilled labor jobs because we like the work. We like the sense of accomplishment we get from a good days work. I've been an aircraft mechanic, worked on a farm as a kid, operated heavy equipment for utilities (trencher, cable plow, backhoe, etc.), moved pianos, construction, built automated machinery, been an appliance tech, served in the USArmy... I learned young that I am not a good office worker. I simply don't like the environment. I've not been without a job since I have been an adult. Without laborors, an economy cannot survive.
Or maybe your mother would not nurse you to cause your self worth issues coward. Syphilis is a hell of a disease, kids.
Bret still waiting on an explanation of how 80 x 7.25 does not exceed the poverty line. Mac , I have done a ton of manual labor as well from installing aluminum siding and insulation to landscaping and various technical positions. I still like working in wood today.I never said there was anything wrong with labor. The world will always need ditch diggers but they will not earn what technical or medical based skills that require higher levels of education will.I have learned that 1st hand I made good income as a certified welder. But I make considerably more now by owning my company doing technical work and providing jobs to others.This came at tremendous personal sacrifice and risk working unending hours as it felt and risking every penny I had.The ITG does apply when you frequently tell people to kill them selves or hurry up and die, so his personal life can be validated or made better.That kind of attitude and vile hatred makes me ashamed to have one common thing with Bret in being an Atheist.I post as HWCOITG'S for a simple capitalistic reason. I do not discriminate on who my company does business with, left or right makes no difference to me. But many people will base their patronage on the political leanings of a company therefore I keep my personal separate from my professional life. For the screen name point I could create a link to any type of identity I wanted. Would there be any reason that it has to be non fiction? I can not validate yours anymore then you could mine. But if you would like to speak privately please leave an email address here I will contact you and we can discuss any questions you have of me. I do not hide I made it clear I was willing to meet Bret at any time any place his dad would pay for him to go. And would make it as public as anyone would like. I want to know if he would call me a coward in person? Or would he tell me to kill myself or spit on me for having served my country or ask me to my face if I have killed children?
Bret still waiting on an explanation of how 80 x 7.25 does not exceed the poverty line. Well, for one you did not factor in payroll taxes and social security. But like I already mentioned (if you can read) that depending on how many people are in your home, that would be below the poverty line.But thanks for the continued laughs.
Bret, I called you out on your post. You said 1 person 2 full times jobs equaling 80 hours. Your back tracking and making excuses looks very bad. It would save a lot of face to your readers to just admit your wrong that over 30k before or after taxes is still well above the poverty line.Please enlighten me as where in this quote you refer to a multiperson household or make an exclusion of before or after taxes? "consider that someone working two full-time minimum wage jobs (that's 80 hours a week) makes just over $20,000 a year."I believe "someone" in that context refers to a single person household or earner not multi.
People don't live in a vacuum, my friend, nor do they live in perfect scenarios.Feel free to fuck off, by the way. If not, don't take my decision to begin ignoring you as anything but my way of telling you that you have ceased being interesting to talk with.
What a sad little man you are turning out to be. At one time I enjoyed your blog. Then you became a more and more bitter and self loathing person. Now you can not even admit a simple mathematical error. Instead you attack when it is pointed out that you are wrong. I pity you and all who know you personally.You can ignore me or not. But please do not refer to me as friend. There is nothing about you that would make me want to consider you for my friendship.
I admitted that I misrepresented the scenario, and I presented the actual one. That clearly isn't enough for you, but I wouldn't expect much less from someone who goes onto someone's blog anonymously (like a pussy) and calls someone "immature" within the same paragraph as challenging them to a fight.You've rambled for quite long enough, I think, but it's really up to you how long you wish to continue confirming what a fool you are. I provided a place here for people to disagree with me, unlike yourself. Where is your collection of ideas and the forum for criticizing them? Oh right, you're an uneducated coward who would never be capable or bold enough to try such a thing.Enjoy the money and loneliness. You earned it.
The words I was wrong would do a much better job restoring credibility to yourself then "I admitted that I misrepresented the scenario,".But attack away. I will enjoy the money I have earned do not fear. Also I will do everything in my power to give as little to those who haven't as possible.If it will validate your low self esteem, I will be happy to spend 10 min putting up a blog for you to attack me on.I will also be happy to meet for coffee or drinks anytime you like. Even as my treat to see how you would call me names in person.As far as loneliness goes I could make jokes about your alleviating that with your wife, but I refrain from being dragged back to your level again. I will admit you had succeeded with that in the last two days but no more. Fear not though I am far form lonely I have a great group of real friends not internet ones and I would wager even at my advanced age of 46, to use your words. "I manage to get laid" more then you. But thanks for the concern in that matter.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how old do you think you're acting?
46 here this is for you. http://hwocoitgs.blogspot.com
I was wrong. I changed the url to my blog it is now http://hwcoitgs.blogspot.com/Feel free to say what you like about me there Bret I will never delete posts. But all math will be checked.
If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.