Reply With Quote
If they are getting subsidies, stop them. It appears however you are suggesting being paid for weapons is a subsidy.
Pretty much.
If they are getting subsidies, stop them. It appears however you are suggesting being paid for weapons is a subsidy.
No, being paid by the government for basic research to produce new weapons is.
sooo? Subsidize this?
I understand your point, but I disagree. Have you ever worked for a manufacturer? I was an engineering tech for four years for a manufacturer. One way or another, the research and developments gets cost factored into the sale of the product.
I work with people who are extraordinarily bright engineers and biochemists. Flow cytometry improvement. I help the two groups understand each other, overpriced translator and diplomat is what I am.
I fully understand the critical role GOVERNMENT plays in producing basic research that PRIVATE companies can use to make money and help people. The stuff I mention is absolutely critical in the proper diagnosis of specific cancers so they can be properly treated, many for children.
But make no mistake, a lot of this would never get started without basic research funding supplied by our government. And some basic research leads to dead ends. Not profitable.
Being paid for tanks that sit in a parking lot in Nevada until they got decommissioned is a subsidy.
Is your name "Any Excuse Duncan?"
You are reaching without proof claiming that as a subsidy.
Besides, what is that bull you are speaking of? You mean seirra Army Depot, right?
Have a look-see yourself:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierr...h&z=15&iwloc=A
What the are you trying to triangulate on google maps now?
And I'm not speaking of bull . The government buys tanks that don't get used at all and literally sit in a parking lot.
College Grads Taking Low-Wage Jobs Displace Less Educated
Jenkins and O’Malley are at opposite ends of a dynamic that is pushing those with college degrees down into compe ion with high-school graduates for low-wage jobs that don’t require college. As this compe ion has intensified during and after the recession, it’s meant relatively higherunemployment, declining labor market participation and lower wages for those with less education.
The jobless rate of Americans ages 25 to 34 who have only completed high school grew 4.3 percentage points to 10.6 percent in 2013 from 2007, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Unemployment for those in that age group with a college degree rose 1.5 percentage points to 3.7 percent in the same period.
“The underemployment of college graduates affects lesser educated parts of the labor force,” said economist Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a not-for-profit research organization in Washington. “Those with high-school diplomas that normally would have no problem getting jobs as bartenders or taxi drivers are sometimes kept from getting the jobs by people with college diplomas,” said Vedder, who is also a Bloomberg View contributor.
...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-educated.html
LOL...
The link is the parking lot!
There are various trucks in it, but I couldn't find any tanks. Maybe you can.
Actually, it's a large lot. I found tanks there. A pretty small percentage of the inventory, and mostly Abrams. Haven't they been going to the depot for MWO's? Do you have a source that is reliable, proving they are just sitting for no reason?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierr...17597&t=h&z=20
I don't see you actually outlining what those reasons are.
I see you tap-dancing. Granted: Higher pay gets and keeps better workers. Oddly enough unions are a way to get that higher pay. Kind of hard to blame unions, therefore, for low pay or poor corporate performance.
Do you have a reason to give for their profitability? You said "one of many reasons".
When unions were gettting good middle class wages for their workers, they were the "salary leaders" such that non-unionized companies wanting good employees competed with unionized companies by offering union-level salaries.
It's obvious, and inarguable, why the VRWC War on Employees has concentrated on busting unions to lower EVERYBODY's income and transfer those unpaid salaries to mgmt and shareholders.
Please, I know you aren't that blind. See outside the box you are in.
Higher pay than minimum wage brings in better applicants. Higher pay for a job group does the same thing. Raising minimum wage will not make better workers. This is a choice that should be left to the people deciding the salary structure for their business model. Not by some bureaucrat buying people's votes.
Unions today in a global economy where manufacturing is cheaper in other countries, is the problem. In the past when unionization started growing, overseas compe ion wasn't taking away union jobs.
The VRWC push for globalization from the 1970s was directly aimed at busting unions as a source of Dem funding by pitting middle class workers against Asian, Central, South American sweatshop slaves.
It worked. VRWC won, inequality exploded, the 99% got screwed, and is unscrewable.
Really?
Why was it Clinton and his democrats in his first two years that expanded free trade to what it is today?
So you don't have any other reasons.
Got it, talking out your ass, per par.
Globalization got really going in the late 1970s, after the VRWC got organized and ins utionalized in the 1970s, and was really legitimized in the 1980s under St Ronnie/Repugs.
Clinton was a brilliant politician but he really wasn't that liberal or progressive, and went along with 99%-screwing like financial deregulation and globalization.
Not my fault you don't understand my point. that's your bad. Not mine.
We also had pretty good tariffs that Clinton's free trade agreements changed.
globalization is all about killing tariffs, duh
Ok, so you agree, but you aren't going to...
Par for the course.
The Average Low-Wage Worker Is Responsible for Half of His or Her Family’s Income
One common myth perpetuated by opponents of raising the minimum wage is that increasing it will mostly benefit young workers who will use the money to support discretionary spending. The reality is much different:
Among workers who would be affected by raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, the average age is 35 years old, and more than a third (34.5 percent) are at least 40 years old.
In fact, minimum-wage workers are often bread-winners, with families who depend on their earnings.
The average low-wage worker who would benefit from a minimum-wage increase is responsible for half (50 percent) of his or her family’s income (ranging from 33 percent in New Hampshire to 60 percent in Louisiana).
Nationally, nearly one in five children (19 percent) has a parent who would be affected by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 (ranging from 11 percent in Alaska to 26 percent in Texas).
While some minimum-wage earners are young workers looking for some spending money, the majority are adults working to put food on their families’ tables.
These numbers further reinforce how important raising the minimum wage is to improving the economic well-being of America’s families.
Raising the minimum wage increases the number of economy boosting jobs that pay enough for families to maintain spending on the basics, lifting families, communities, and local businesses in the process.
http://www.epi.org/publication/minim...-for-families/
It's amazing we're arguing over a $10.10 minimum wage... I can't imagine trying to raise a family on that either. I honestly couldn't take care of myself on minimum wage or anything close to it. About $10 an hour is what I made at my part-time college job and it was hardly enough for beer money and a fun night out every weekend.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions