quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bindme84


What happens to the stock market during a recession? The values go down. What happens to the stock market during a time of prosperity? The values go up. I was not intending to suggest any correlation between the stock prices and consumer spending power. I was merely citing them as two separate examples of why a corporation would prefer to exist in a strong economy than a weak one. They like their stock to rise in value, and they like stable revenue streams.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There's the whole customer requirement, though. If someone is willing to work for $5/hr. why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I agree and many do but acquiescing to the goals of the corporation puts govt. as [its] partner. The role of govt. as many intellects of the pass have tried to tell us is to reign in the power of the corporation from creating a pauper or slave labor society...it having and assuming no responsibility to do otherwise. We would still be killing people all over industrial America (and they still are far too often) and have 12 year old working 70 hour weeks for .10/hr.

Government is not should not be the partner of the Corporation. The Labor Movement was not a government movement, but a worker's movement. The Labor Movement was an absolutely necessary change to working conditions (sad that it took a movement). Government has adopted and coded most of the items the Labor Movement wanted. That is a good thing.

If someone is willing to work for less than the "minimum wage," why can't he or she voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hmm1233

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

The "Job creators" as he puts it simply have control over the resources required to supply jobs. It's a game of control and domination, and as long as people are dumb enough to actually believe the employer is giving them something by exploiting them, they will be exploited. We'd be better off if we killed a lot of our employers and freed up the resources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: hmm1233

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

The "Job creators" as he puts it simply have control over the resources required to supply jobs. It's a game of control and domination, and as long as people are dumb enough to actually believe the employer is giving them something by exploiting them, they will be exploited. We'd be better off if we killed a lot of our employers and freed up the resources.

Yeah LOL....I think Marx and Engels were somewhat focused on that concept for a while.

Worked well for them, eh?

(If I recall, Stalin studied these fellows).

Yeah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hmm1233

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: hmm1233

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

The "Job creators" as he puts it simply have control over the resources required to supply jobs. It's a game of control and domination, and as long as people are dumb enough to actually believe the employer is giving them something by exploiting them, they will be exploited. We'd be better off if we killed a lot of our employers and freed up the resources.

Yeah LOL....I think Marx and Engels were somewhat focused on that concept for a while.

Worked well for them, eh?

(If I recall, Stalin studied these fellows).

Yeah.

First of all, I'm not really a Marxist. A sociopathic person (Stalin) or a sociopathic corporation (all of them) having too much power is a bad thing. The truth is the truth, however. To call employers, "job creators" simply because they have a corner on the resources to do so does not follow logically. It also does not make the actual employer necessary or useful. Capitalism breaks down when all the resources pigeon hole into the top minority, and that is what has happened. Socialism can and will break down as well... all of these systems can fail.

Anyway, you're dumb. Stalin, as evil as he was, made Russia a powerful empire. To blame his evil acts on Marxism is like blaming capitalism for Pinochet or Andrew Jackson. Or to put it in a context you can understand better, calling anti-smoking laws Nazi because Hitler did the same thing. The associations don't actually mean anything, and it's retarded propaganda. Go stack blocks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bindme84

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

That does seem to be the Democrat philosophy, doesn't it? Keep the economy in the toilet, keep as many people as possible completely dependent on government (say 47 million on food stamps) and the Democrats have voters who will be terrified to leave them...

To get all economic on this, the opportunity cost of keeping the economy "in the toilet" is that you don't have a good, thriving economy. I can't think of a legitimate reason for a politician to turn down an opportunity to brag about how the country's economy is thriving under their watch. It's the ultimate Get Re-Elected Free Card.

quote:

I can't think of a legitimate reason for a politician to turn down an opportunity to brag about how the country's economy is thriving under their watch.

quote:

Depends on who is thriving, for example the bladder heads on fox business news and cnbc crow that the stock market and profits are at record highs,yet those are being enjoyed by very few people (primarily top 1%)..think is,the top 1% control elections,and they convince the boobs,especially the tea party, that the 1% enjoying their gains is going to make them rich,too...

quote:

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

(It always amazes me, the opinions of those who don't create....and have never created a job).

The marketplace creates jobs and that marketplace must not only have demand (for many things it always does) but its customers must have the financial ability to fulfill that demand. Like I said and it is sadly true, to look to the corporations in particular...they have not created one new net job in the US since the 1950's.

BTW my demand in the economy from my income level, creates as many jobs as anybody's similarly positioned. There are no such 'things' or 'people' that create jobs.

If you know otherwise why don't you identify these job creators with good substantiation, we could all learn how to go out and create jobs.

I'll do my best to explain this concept to your employer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.

The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?

I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.

Well. This all is dependent on a low pay service economy, a third world economy. In other words, most in the economy are working at low paying service jobs like flipping burgers or cleaning offices or farm work. The problem with that scenario is soon you run out of people who can afford to buy your burgers since your workers cannot afford them nor can anyone else's workers. Soon after that, you start to make burgers cheaper (notice every fast food place is hawking their cheaper menu?) so even your workers can afford them but lo and behold that lasts just a little while because you have to lay off a few to support the cheaper menu and everyone does that to compete and soon fewer people actually work and can buy your burgers or even drive to your burger place because they don't own a car (seen those walking families walking to Walmart now? I have.)

It's a downward spiral and anyone can see it will take courage and boldness and a return to a policy that protects our industry and our use of cheap energy resources to rebuild our manufacturing economy and our middle class rather than a policy of wealth redistribution though taxation. Without these steps wealth leaves and the doers leave and we are a country of non-doers, a country on disability, a third world country whose achievements now pale against what they were and what they will never be again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I agree for the most part but society adapts in the nature of say like my family in the 20's...7 families in a 5 room row house. Streets not just adding but steaming with homeless. There was a time when the middle class didn't have cars, they were a specialty item until Henry Ford not only created his assembly line but raised pay and shortened hours. Still took years for those advantages for society as a whole to pursue cars.

A relative working all of his life didn't get a new car until 1940, some 30 years after Ford's breakthrough. Both of which increased demand and productivity and that's my point. Early post WWII productivity gains were shared 2/3 to investors, 1/3 to labor. Now it's 90% to investors 10% to labor. Thus it is the unemployment, competition from China and the reduced share of productivity gains that is creating a two class society in America...rich and poor.

That's also the high unemployment I sarcastically suggest...is a good thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.
The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?
I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.
What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

There's the whole customer requirement, though. If someone is willing to work for $5/hr. why shouldn't they be allowed to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I agree and many do but acquiescing to the goals of the corporation puts govt. as [its] partner. The role of govt. as many intellects of the pass have tried to tell us is to reign in the power of the corporation from creating a pauper or slave labor society...it having and assuming no responsibility to do otherwise. We would still be killing people all over industrial America (and they still are far too often) and have 12 year old working 70 hour weeks for .10/hr.

If you want to bust up the govt/corp partnership, the best way is to invest in small businesses instead of the huge, multinational conglomerates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If someone is willing to work for less than the "minimum wage," why can't he or she voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
How's that ? Well, the corporation being charged with the fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, would then be able to reduce payroll. Payroll is among the corp's. highest expenses so.....? The company could reduce its search for communist slave labor, reducing costs even further.
The highest possible unemployment would be a great profit center and a win-win situation. Well, win for the corp., win for the investors but not such a win for labor but then...who cares about them ?
I mean think about it, 20-25% unemployment would have say 8000 people applying for one $12.50/hr. janitorial position. Well, wait...we already have that. So then why not offer say $9/hr or hey, yea, that's the ticket...reduce all jobs to minimum wage and that way we could get back down to say 15% unemployment.
What's that you say...didn't slave have jobs ? Well, yes they did and look how well that turned out...for the slave owners...history's greatest profit center. I mean fuck the slaves, we are here to make some money and this means...more money and that's all that matters in the American society, right ? Well, I do have a point right ?

There's the whole customer requirement, though. If someone is willing to work for $5/hr. why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Yet, how many really want to?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)