Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours...

I made a claim that we are living in a Plutocracy and that is why we are seeing this widening wage gap. You are saying its because of the banking system.

I believe they are one in the same but saying you don't like the banks is more palatable for you instead of just acknowledging the fact that its the wealthy of this world that are screwing everyone else.

Certainly... wealthy people are in control of the banks and they have done their part in screwing our economic system for the long term. Our government has done more damage - and they've been able to, because of the banks being complicit.

But the CEO of Home Depot isn't the problem. So stop whining about them.
 
Certainly... wealthy people are in control of the banks and they have done their part in screwing our economic system for the long term. Our government has done more damage - and they've been able to, because of the banks being complicit.

But the CEO of Home Depot isn't the problem. So stop whining about them.

The CEO of home depot is a tool for this Plutocracy. Multiple layers have to be formed so that you can create a convoluted enough picture to confuse the populace.

Our government is nothing more than an extension of the will of the wealthy. Just like every government around the world.
 
If a politician is going to make a decision on the economy, don't you think they should have an education on that very subject? Or should you just have them guess?

.

There's my rub. I don't want politicians "making decisions" on the economy. They are unable to - frankly nobody is. But they sure try to.
 
The CEO of home depot is a tool for this Plutocracy. Multiple layers have to be formed so that you can create a convoluted enough picture to confuse the populace.

Our government is nothing more than an extension of the will of the wealthy. Just like every government around the world.

So why are you mad at CEO's? Why aren't you mad at Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke?

You sound like a typical left wing cry baby playing the victim card of big business.
 
I get what you're saying, but I think the danger in that is that when there is such extreme asymmetry in power (between a low-level worker and corporate behemoth in contemporary America) such a thing could be a slippery slope and may be abused by employers.

Lot of options and money out there for finding employers negligent of labor laws and regs. If I wanted to work 7/7, I ought to be able to if it meant some extra bootstrap pulling capital.
 
So why are you mad at CEO's? Why aren't you mad at Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke?

You sound like a typical left wing cry baby playing the victim card of big business.

Not sure when I made the claim I'm mad at CEO's.

Also not sure why you have to resort to name calling when I thought we were having a civil conversation.

I am all for a capitalistic system but I do not believe that everyone is playing on a level field.
 
Lot of options and money out there for finding employers negligent of labor laws and regs. If I wanted to work 7/7, I ought to be able to if it meant some extra bootstrap pulling capital.

I'm sympathetic to the argument, and I'm not sure I don't agree with it outright, but the first part of your statement is just wrong. The states are toothless (read: broke and have higher priorities) and the NLRB and federal agencies have been systematically neutered over decades.
 
I'm sympathetic to the argument, and I'm not sure I don't agree with it outright, but the first part of your statement is just wrong. The states are toothless (read: broke and have higher priorities) and the NLRB and federal agencies have been systematically neutered over decades.

I think it's ridiculous to say I can't voluntarily work as much as I want
 
It's not spineless posturing and it's not self identification. What you're doing is taking a very small portion of my beliefs and labeling me as a whole from it. It's like labeling someone a child molester because they slept with a 17 year old when they were 18. It's labeling someone as a socialist because they think they way the fire dept is ran is fine. Labeling someone a murderer because they killed someone in self defense in a home invasion. You can place labels anyway you want and it may be true in a very small literal sense but it doesn't give credence to what the truth actually is.

This is the second time in this thread that you've broken out a set of analogies that are frankly just bizarre and unrelated. I'd use this one: a guy says he believes that he can self-govern with greater efficacy than a national government (that's anarchism) and seems to support an aggressive level of wealth redistribution blended with the extreme curbing of private businesses (that's communism) ... what do you get? Anarcho-communism.

You know exactly what I meant by lobbying and I made myself pretty clear there by my stance in this thread. That bolded part is just useless fluff to try and get over on me.

No, I didn't know what you meant (and if that were the actual case why did you start trying to say that petitioning the government only involved sending in written lists?) -- I had to prod you to induce some sort of clarification because you keep making these broad claims and then get pissy (and start trying to land petty jabs) when I remind you that it's more complex than that.

If a politician is going to make a decision on the economy, don't you think they should have an education on that very subject? Or should you just have them guess?

No, and anyways, that's basically impossible except in a very broad sense. I expect a politician to research the issues, listen to aides/his (or her) constituency/lobbyists (oh, the humanity).

It doesn't make me the least bit irresponsible at all. If I think I'm a better candidate than Jeb Bush and I vote for myself, then I made the responsible vote. If you think the responsible vote is a guy who comes from a bloodline of despicable travesties, then we will just agree to disagree there because no amount of debating will ever change our minds. Simply voting for one of the two politicians from the same pool we always get does not make you a responsible voter.

The responsible vote is a vote, period. But I hope you realize that a vote for yourself is tantamount to not voting at all.
 
This is the second time in this thread that you've broken out a set of analogies that are frankly just bizarre and unrelated. I'd use this one: a guy says he believes that he can self-govern with greater efficacy than a national government (that's anarchism) and seems to support an aggressive level of wealth redistribution blended with the extreme curbing of private businesses (that's communism) ... what do you get? Anarcho-communism.

No, I didn't know what you meant -- I had to prod you to induce some sort of clarification because you keep making these broad claims and then get pissy (and start trying to land petty jabs) when I try and remind you that it's more complex than that.

No, and anyways, that's basically impossible except in a very broad sense. I expect a politician to research the issues, listen to aides/his (or her) constituency/lobbyists (oh, the humanity).

The responsible vote is a vote, period. But I hope you realize that a vote for yourself is tantamount to not voting at all.

What do you think the point of an analogy is? Look up the definition. My analogies might not be the ones you would use but they are simple and on point. If you don't like the fact that you overreact like that, then don't do it.



I could pick apart everything you've said in this thread too but that's just childish since I get the gist of what you're saying without you having to break it down into every minute detail. You knew exactly what I meant about lobbying so any further discussion there is pointless

Being educated on the subject you're making decisions for is basically impossible. Ok.

So go along with the same old order that the media says you have to follow or else your vote doesn't count. Yet another solid point and exactly why nothing will ever change. Until people stop thinking that way, we will remain on the same course we're on right now. This is just annoyingly redundant now. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Enjoy voting for your next hero in office who does nothing for you.
 
I think it's ridiculous to say I can't voluntarily work as much as I want

Just like it's ridiculous that 14-year-olds can't VOLUNTARILY be employed full-time.

I get it. I do. But you're acting as if those laws don't exist for a reason. Surely you aren't that obtuse.
 
Just like it's ridiculous that 14-year-olds can't VOLUNTARILY be employed full-time.

I get it. I do. But you're acting as if those laws don't exist for a reason. Surely you aren't that obtuse.

I'm not acting like that at all. Child labor laws are fine by me because I don't think the child has the mental capacity to make decisions that's best for him/herself

But for the government to tell someone they CAN'T work when they would like to, or NEED to, is ridiculous.
 
What do you think the point of an analogy is? Look up the definition. My analogies might not be the ones you would use but they are simple and on point. If you don't like the fact that you overreact like that, then don't do it.

Okay, I did.

Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

So, you tell me, how is saying that an '18 year old who had sex with a 17 year old shouldn't be called a child molester' remotely similar to "taking a very small portion of [someone's] beliefs and labeling [them] as a whole from it"?

Or was that just your way of saying that you don't like being judged for your words/actions? Fine.

Being educated on the subject you're making decisions for is basically impossible. Ok.

So every politician should be educated in social theory, economics, urban planning, medicine, science, law enforcement, geology, foreign affairs, childhood development, psychology, etc.?

Or should I just 'know what you mean' here too?

So go along with the same old order that the media says you have to follow or else your vote doesn't count. Yet another solid point and exactly why nothing will ever change. Until people stop thinking that way, we will remain on the same course we're on right now. This is just annoyingly redundant now. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Enjoy voting for your next hero in office who does nothing for you.

If by 'old order' you mean the Founding Fathers, then yeah.

Also, in case you've been sleeping for the past ~8 years, **** has majorly changed in this country both politically AND socially. I understand that reality is inconvenient to your '**** the system' argument, but it's also obliviousness incarnate.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree, mainly because I haven't tried to convince you of anything except your own voice in this thread. It seems you have long given that idea up, though, and that's your prerogative. That's sad to me.
 
I'm not acting like that at all. Child labor laws are fine by me because I don't think the child has the mental capacity to make decisions that's best for him/herself

But for the government to tell someone they CAN'T work when they would like to, or NEED to, is ridiculous.

No, it's pretty much the exact same argument. Both laws are enacted to prevent employers in a "buyers market" from unfairly leveraging the labor force.
 
No, it's pretty much the exact same argument. Both laws are enacted to prevent employers in a "buyers market" from unfairly leveraging the labor force.

No. It's not. You're free to agree with the laws but it's not the same argument. I would like to allow people the freedom to make the decisions for themselves. You'd like the government to make the decisions for them. To each their own
 
Sturg, what you're saying makes sense but people just cannot handle it and it ruins it for everyone.

Last area I worked at we did normal 40 hour work weeks. After a while the work load got very heavy so they opened it up to unlimited overtime for everyone, but it was all optional. Boss said he didn't care if you did 0 hours or 80 a month. At first we all did a good amount of overtime and after a few months it started to wear off. Some guys we're still doing 80 hours a month, some guys 40, some guys tailed off and did none at all.

After a while the boss would start making passive aggressive comments about the guys who weren't working a bunch of overtime. One of them transferred out because he was tired of getting **** all the time for "only" working 40 hours a week. Our boss started to perceive him as being lazy because he didn't do over 40. He was in good standing with the boss before the overtime came about and after a while the boss was constantly on his ass even though he was doing the same amount of work as before.
 
Sturg, what you're saying makes sense but people just cannot handle it and it ruins it for everyone.

Last area I worked at we did normal 40 hour work weeks. After a while the work load got very heavy so they opened it up to unlimited overtime for everyone, but it was all optional. Boss said he didn't care if you did 0 hours or 80 a month. At first we all did a good amount of overtime and after a few months it started to wear off. Some guys we're still doing 80 hours a month, some guys 40, some guys tailed off and did none at all.

After a while the boss would start making passive aggressive comments about the guys who weren't working a bunch of overtime. One of them transferred out because he was tired of getting **** all the time for "only" working 40 hours a week. Our boss started to perceive him as being lazy because he didn't do over 40. He was in good standing with the boss before the overtime came about and after a while the boss was constantly on his ass even though he was doing the same amount of work as before.

I get that. The solution is to leave. and the guy did.

That's not slave labor
 
No. It's not. You're free to agree with the laws but it's not the same argument. I would like to allow people the freedom to make the decisions for themselves. You'd like the government to make the decisions for them. To each their own

It's cool how you can ignore a couple of centuries worth of labor abuses by casting it in terms of peoples' "freedom to make the decisions for themselves."
 
Back
Top