| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Negoba 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
 Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:55 |
Let's bring this back to lulz which is what the interwebz is fer.
Bachmann quotes:
- "And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it."
- "(Gay marriage) is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that."
- “During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26.”
- "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
- In 2006, Bachmann said, "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
- "Not all cultures are equal."
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:58 |
|
^I agree with several of those quotes, I disagree with others. I could say the same thing about quotes from any presidential candidate.
|
|
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:59 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement.
|
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment.
|
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices.
The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes.
|
There really isn't a wage that makes no difference. In fact such a wage couldn't be offered since businesses would just go unemployed.
The fact that companies want employees leads to a wage. There's no need to get too cute with the analysis. Businesses can't indefinitely decrease wages or they would for all jobs. The fact that the minimum wage is below market equilibrium in most cases suggests that companies can't do this.
|
I would hope it's like that but I'm more skeptical. History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:03 |
thellama73 wrote:
^I agree with several of those quotes, I disagree with others. I could say the same thing about quotes from any presidential candidate. |
Only one of those quotes is defensible "All cultures are not equal," and that would get down to semantics very quickly.
The others are mostly gibberish.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:07 |
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
^I agree with several of those quotes, I disagree with others. I could say the same thing about quotes from any presidential candidate. |
Only one of those quotes is defensible "All cultures are not equal," and that would get down to semantics very quickly.
The others are mostly gibberish.
|
The one about government spending is a little colorful, but plain enough. I don't know the figures, but I would expect that there are Nobel Prize winning scientists who believe in intelligent design. I also agree that it is ridiculous for public schools to devote chunks of time to explain homosexuality to young children, while denying these same children free speech rights to say things like "under God."
|
|
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:09 |
thellama73 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement.
|
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment.
|
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices.
The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes.
|
If it makes no difference whether they are employed or not, then there's no reason for them to take the job. Wages will have to rise beyond that point to induce them to do so.
|
That's the theory, but I could feel in practice where truth lies. When I started working a few years ago in my home country the minimum wage (which was about 100 euros per month) could only pay about 50% of the cost of renting a room (not a studio, a room) in an industrial area appartment building, and of food. Fortunately I started by earning double the minimum wage, just enough to pay that cost and nothing more, so this isn't about my case; but the majority of jobs were at minimum wage and all of them were taken. When in poverty, people are desperate for those jobs, and the "then there's no reason for them to take the job" logic doesn't apply.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:11 |
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:13 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement.
|
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment.
|
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices.
The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes.
|
If it makes no difference whether they are employed or not, then there's no reason for them to take the job. Wages will have to rise beyond that point to induce them to do so.
|
That's the theory, but I could feel in practice where truth lies. When I started working a few years ago in my home country the minimum wage (which was about 100 euros per month) could only pay about 50% of the cost of renting a room (not a studio, a room) in an industrial area appartment building, and of food. Fortunately I started by earning double the minimum wage, just enough to pay that cost and nothing more, so this isn't about my case; but the majority of jobs were at minimum wage and all of them were taken. When in poverty, people are desperate for those jobs, and the "then there's no reason for them to take the job" logic doesn't apply.
|
I think there's a big difference between earning 50% of your rent and earning 0% of your rent. I thought you were talking about cases where there is little difference between getting paid or not getting paid.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:19 |
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
^I agree with several of those quotes, I disagree with others. I could say the same thing about quotes from any presidential candidate. |
Only one of those quotes is defensible "All cultures are not equal," and that would get down to semantics very quickly.
The others are mostly gibberish.
|
The one about government spending is a little colorful, but plain enough. I don't know the figures, but I would expect that there are Nobel Prize winning scientists who believe in intelligent design. I also agree that it is ridiculous for public schools to devote chunks of time to explain homosexuality to young children, while denying these same children free speech rights to say things like "under God."
|
That's not what she said.
And that's not what the courts say.
And by the time you're at "shooting their wad" we've gone from "a little colorful" to an 80's hair metal song.
But you keep telling yourself lies to make a point.
If she's not careful she's going to get Obama another term, and he should have been about as ripe for the picking as there was.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, when you start to believe your own BS you become a laughing stock. She's there.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:20 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement.
|
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment.
|
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices.
The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes.
|
There really isn't a wage that makes no difference. In fact such a wage couldn't be offered since businesses would just go unemployed.
The fact that companies want employees leads to a wage. There's no need to get too cute with the analysis. Businesses can't indefinitely decrease wages or they would for all jobs. The fact that the minimum wage is below market equilibrium in most cases suggests that companies can't do this.
|
I would hope it's like that but I'm more skeptical. History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
I agree that people are willing to work for barely nothing. That is part of what I was saying.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:21 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
And that's any of your business how?
Many humans believe that "equality" can be created through government. This would be fine if we were talking about equality through liberty (government does not interfere with your life and only exists to ensure no one else forcibly interferes with your life) but most people are talking about results. There can never be equality of results and it is not something we should fool ourselves into believing is a noble cause. People are individuals with different wants, needs, desires and when you go to government for a solution to any problem you completely ignore this. No central planning agency can accurately meet the needs of the people and, in fact, directly create inequalities in the name of ending them.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:22 |
thellama73 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement.
|
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment.
|
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices.
The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes.
|
If it makes no difference whether they are employed or not, then there's no reason for them to take the job. Wages will have to rise beyond that point to induce them to do so.
|
That's the theory, but I could feel in practice where truth lies. When I started working a few years ago in my home country the minimum wage (which was about 100 euros per month) could only pay about 50% of the cost of renting a room (not a studio, a room) in an industrial area appartment building, and of food. Fortunately I started by earning double the minimum wage, just enough to pay that cost and nothing more, so this isn't about my case; but the majority of jobs were at minimum wage and all of them were taken. When in poverty, people are desperate for those jobs, and the "then there's no reason for them to take the job" logic doesn't apply.
|
I think there's a big difference between earning 50% of your rent and earning 0% of your rent. I thought you were talking about cases where there is little difference between getting paid or not getting paid.
|
I was a young dude needing nothing, so while the minimum wage was covering 50% of my room and food, it would have covered somewhere up to 5% if I had a wife and two kids in school (appartment, food, clothers, school, medical care, etc.)
Edited by harmonium.ro - July 12 2011 at 13:35
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:23 |
manofmystery wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
And that's any of your business how?
Many humans believe that "equality" can be created through government. This would be fine if we were talking about equality through liberty (government does not interfere with your life and only exists to ensure no one else forcibly interferes with your life) but most people are talking about results. There can never be equality of results and it is not something we should fool ourselves into believing is a noble cause. People are individuals with different wants, needs, desires and when you go to government for a solution to any problem you completely ignore this. No central planning agency can accurately meet the needs of the people and, in fact, directly create inequalities in the name of ending them. |
Not that I agree with all of this, but what intelligent person stole your account name and password?
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:25 |
manofmystery wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
And that's any of your business how?
Many humans believe that "equality" can be created through government. This would be fine if we were talking about equality through liberty (government does not interfere with your life and only exists to ensure no one else forcibly interferes with your life) but most people are talking about results. There can never be equality of results and it is not something we should fool ourselves into believing is a noble cause. People are individuals with different wants, needs, desires and when you go to government for a solution to any problem you completely ignore this. No central planning agency can accurately meet the needs of the people and, in fact, directly create inequalities in the name of ending them. |
LOL, did you even read the discussion so far?
|
|
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:27 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I've made the argument many times that minimum wage is set below the market level for almost all jobs... |
Undeniably true. Median income in the United States is twice minimum wage (32K median versus 15K for federal minimum, 40h/52w).
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
so that the argument is really moot however as a policy it should still be discouraged. |
I wouldn't argue that it's completely moot. If it increases the wages of workers at that level without increasing unemployment, it has done something. If anything, it's more of a barrier against extreme market fluctuation and human stupidity than anything else.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
It's hard to argue against the fact that certain no skill, low paying jobs have been completely wiped out due to it. |
I would dispute that. There is essentially no wage at which a man is not readily replaced by technology. The jobs are not eliminated because they cost to much, they're eliminated because they cost anything. Liability concerns alone are enough to put an unpaid worker on the chopping block, not to mention that technology is typically more efficient than a man ever could be.
Epignosis wrote:
In a nutshell:
By
increasing minimum wage, cost of living goes up. Companies must pay
workers more, and so pass this cost onto the consumer by raising
prices.
The biggest argument against minimum wage is that it
doesn't improve any group's situation (certainly not permanently).
Minimum wage keeps going up, but the number of impoverished Americans
doesn't decrease.
The
only way the government can make minimum wage "work" is to cap how much
businesses can charge for goods and services, and dictate what
companies citizens must buy from.
|
1. CoL increase: If and only if people purchase on relative values; that is, people are willing to spend the same portion of their income on an item regardless of income level. In reality, if I'm a middle-class person, spending 20% of my income on housing is quite reasonable; if I'm one of the Koch brothers, spending 20% of my income on housing would be a challenge. 2. Minimum wage with respect to inflation has not been rising and is not near its peak in 1968 when poverty was lower than it is now. Whether it affects the poverty rate at all is hard to say. Minimum wage is already below the poverty line for a 2-person household, IIRC. 3. I have no idea where you're going with your how-to-make-it-work thing. What goal are you suggesting they're trying to accomplish?
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:29 |
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
^I agree with several of those quotes, I disagree with others. I could say the same thing about quotes from any presidential candidate. |
Only one of those quotes is defensible "All cultures are not equal," and that would get down to semantics very quickly.
The others are mostly gibberish.
|
The one about government spending is a little colorful, but plain enough. I don't know the figures, but I would expect that there are Nobel Prize winning scientists who believe in intelligent design. I also agree that it is ridiculous for public schools to devote chunks of time to explain homosexuality to young children, while denying these same children free speech rights to say things like "under God."
|
That's not what she said.
And that's not what the courts say.
And by the time you're at "shooting their wad" we've gone from "a little colorful" to an 80's hair metal song.
But you keep telling yourself lies to make a point.
If she's not careful she's going to get Obama another term, and he should have been about as ripe for the picking as there was.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, when you start to believe your own BS you become a laughing stock. She's there. |
President Obama said there are 57 states, he doesn't know how old his children are, he pronounces "corps" as "corpse", he gave Tony Blair a bunch of cheap, improperly formatted DVDs in exchange for a thoughtful historical relic, he interrupted the entrance of the Queen of England with an ill-timed toast. I do not think he is stupid. I think anyone who makes a large number of public statements and appearances will make these kinds of mistakes and it is wrong to draw conclusions about a person's intellect from their gaffes.
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:31 |
Negoba wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
And that's any of your business how?
Many humans believe that "equality" can be created through government. This would be fine if we were talking about equality through liberty (government does not interfere with your life and only exists to ensure no one else forcibly interferes with your life) but most people are talking about results. There can never be equality of results and it is not something we should fool ourselves into believing is a noble cause. People are individuals with different wants, needs, desires and when you go to government for a solution to any problem you completely ignore this. No central planning agency can accurately meet the needs of the people and, in fact, directly create inequalities in the name of ending them. |
Not that I agree with all of this, but what intelligent person stole your account name and password? |
I've been saying this for what seems like years and years over in the Libertarian thread(s).
|
Time always wins.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 15:12 |
|
*checks in to see how thread is doing*
*sees 105 new posts*
*moonwalks into the night never to be seen again*
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:02 |
manofmystery wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
History showed people are willing to work for barely nothing. In fact, in other countries that history is actually the present.
|
And that's any of your business how?
Many humans believe that "equality" can be created through government. This would be fine if we were talking about equality through liberty (government does not interfere with your life and only exists to ensure no one else forcibly interferes with your life) but most people are talking about results. There can never be equality of results and it is not something we should fool ourselves into believing is a noble cause. People are individuals with different wants, needs, desires and when you go to government for a solution to any problem you completely ignore this. No central planning agency can accurately meet the needs of the people and, in fact, directly create inequalities in the name of ending them. |
I used to be a Libertarian, but then I grew up and realized that we don't live in a perfect world. And since we are essentially a mass of imperfect humanity with (as you have stated) many different wants, need and desires, none of the many social, economic and political systems we all learned about in school and in life can work perfectly or meet everyone's needs. Which means we must have compromise, cooperation, tolerance and compassion for our fellow man if we have any hope of progressing as a human race. Anything less is just some degree of anarchy.
I agree equality shouldn't be about results, and liberty should mean a society where nobody including government interferes with your inalienable rights as a human being and as a citizen. But governments must exist because, among other reasons, in a unregulated society people will inevitably intefere with your rights. Unregulated and undermanaged capitalists, fundamentalists, zealots, tyrants and playground bullies have proven time and again that at some point some of them will impinge on your liberties through force, collusion, monopolies, prejudice, vice or simply greed in order to gain economic, political, religious and/or social superiority at the expense of those who can't or won't avail themselves of the same advantages.
Governments provide the enforcement elements of the social contract we all operate under, which varies in scope and reach from society to society but ultimately exists and has existed for most of civilized history because humans have long recognized the need for it to exist. In trying times like these we should work ever harder to build up and improve our governance systems, not despise and seek to dismantle them.
The general thread here seems to have wandered into discussion about the minimum wage. I don't know if a minimum wage helps or hurts employment, but I do feel like Maslow had it right in the sense that when someone becomes an employee (effectively selling pieces of their life 8 hours or so at a time), there is an expectation that the exchange of their time will result in a benefit that outweighs what they are giving up. If that wage is not enough to meet their basic physical needs (food, clothing, shelter) then that person is not going to invest any more of themselves or their time than they must in order to remain an employee. If employment is sufficient to meet those basic needs then that person in most normal situations is going to emotionally, cognitively and physically invest more in order to achieve higher needs such as a sense of belonging, personal growth and achievement, and for their self-esteem.
If an employer is free to basically 'buy' human labor from the lowest bidder then three things will inevitably happen to upset this hierachy. First, the employer is going to get the lowest quality and reliability from that employee and those who are able and willing to invest more will move on to the employers who provide greater value and reward for their work since that employer will meet more of their needs. Second, the employer will never realize the benefit of more fully-actualized employees since they (the employer) aren't investing enough to merit it, which means the business will fail to grow and thrive at the level that it could. I have seem this played out repeatedly in real-world examples for years in the industries I've worked in. And third, society as a whole (including nations, governments, communities, families, knitting bees and other social systems) will incur some level of burden to either absorb the delta between a wage and the level of basic needs; or to deal with the burden of a portion of their population who are not progressing along the hierarchy of needs to the point where they are contributors to, rather than loads on, that society. This burden can and often does take on the form of discontent and even violence.
So as for a minimum wage I would say that the need we have as a human race is to ensure that all people who sell themselves into employment gain enough from that arrangement to meet more than their basic needs, if we hope to continue progressing and growing the race as a whole. When we fail to do so we deny both sustenance and hope, and will pay the price one way or another in the long run.
peace
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
fusionfreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 23 2007
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 1317
|
Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:03 |
|
I don't care about economics but about people.Countries should sign a world agreement on minimum wage and also on taxes because rich people never pay and make the poor pay,that's not fair.Banksters always despise State and prefer relying on themselves,ok then so when you fail don't ask some help and shut up!Be logical for Godness Sake!I'm poor so I'm not going to vote for people who wish to impoverish the poor!Minimum wage should be the global rule and it must be raised,Rich should pay their taxes,Davos,like Wall Street,City....., should disappear.I know I'm a dreamer but Tierra y Libertad!
|
|
I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world
of searchers with the help from
crimson king
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Michele Bachmann
