Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 9, 2013 -> 07:16 PM) Proactive information is different than reactive preaching. People like to tell a person who has been raped all the things they did wrong, as if they didn't think about the ways they did and did not avoid risk. There is also a tendency to focus on telling women how NOT to be raped rather than spend time telling men not to rape. It sounds silly to tell men not to to do this, but it actually has to be said. I think that's sort of a given. We've declared rape a crime and told men not to do it. It's more effective to advise women on ways to prevent the rape from happening in the first place (to the extent possible). I get that rape is a touchy subject, but it's not a subject that should be totally off limits from judgement. If you walk down a s***ty neighborhood with cash visible, playing on a tablet with an expensive blue tooth headset on and you get robbed, are we really supposed to ignore those errors and not comment on them? Who wouldn't look at that situation and think "well, he was an idiot and was asking for it." Why should rape be treated any differently? You don't excuse the crime, and the majority of the focus should be on the criminal. But we can point out the mistakes that were made by the victim to assist others in the future.

"Forced to Settle" is an oxymoron.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 11:12 AM) But all you're doing is making it a little easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to become big businesses. Where does the calculus ultimately change there? Why wouldn't these new-big-businesses also have CEO's making 380 times the average employee's salaries, why wouldn't a substantial portion of the wealth created still be siphoned off by the finance industry? We've seen the growth of gigantic, multi-national firms over the past several decades and we've seen real wages stagnate and opportunities disappear. Why should we expect drastically different results from these tax policy changes? Potentially, but you can make requirements on the tax incentives they get. Every employee gets a pro-rata share of the credit/refund. If Congress is giving you money back, they can mandate what that money can be used for. Either way, if you're an employee of a small company that continues to grow, chances are very high that you're going to stay with that company, gain more responsibility and get paid more. Ultimately though, I think you're right. There's nothing the government can do to stop a fortune 500 company from giving CEO's multi-million dollar bonuses while the peons make small salaries without good benefits. That's going to take a market shift where people no longer want to work for that company until they change their practices. Difficult to do in a down economy. What's your solution? How do we get the 1% to share the wealth? Income/capital gains taxes will only get you so much. And it won't really address entire classes of people. At best you'll help fund some welfare programs, but that's not really changing anything, that's just maintaining the current system. I don't buy this. Some might, most won't. You're talking about gigantic gambles and potentially even more lost revenue. You think consumer won't change their perception of GE if they stick it to the US, refuse to pay their fair share of taxes and go work out of X country? Heck, make it part of the bill that if a company leaves because they don't want to pay taxes they're estopped from conducting business in the US. No company is going to risk that. (And yes, that's an extreme measure that would never ever happen, but i'm sure there are ways to keep businesses from leaving). I don't know that that's the goal. In fact, I don't want it to be the goal. I wish our entire economy had no major multi-national businesses. I wish it were all local mom and pop shops. The big corporations suck from just about every angle but pricing and availability.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 10:36 AM) I was making a descriptive statement there. It was more about pointing out the fallacy of treating "market forces" as some sort of deity with its own will and unknowable intentions when it's really the culmination of peoples' collective actions and conscious choices. But how would helping small and medium businesses become big businesses help them? What do you do in the age of incredibly mobile capital to keep the big businesses, who still employ a majority of Americans (if we count "big" as >500 employees), around? You're just shifting some tax preferences around in the same structure. (how are these substantial tax reforms not "broad, mandatory measures"??) The bigger the business, the more employees, the bigger the impact on local and state economies. The more people have the opportunity to advance within the company and make more money and on and on. And yes, we are changing the tax structure. Big businesses should be paying a bunch of taxes whereas the little business should be paying next to none. One can afford it, the other can't. And they're limited because they'd only apply to a minority of businesses. If facebook and GE are getting away from paying hundreds of millions in taxes, that's f***ed up, especially when their respective owners/board members are worth billions of dollars individually.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) So? None of that challenges my statement that the people who comprise "The Market" that sets wage rates are always looking to minimize wage rates. For the barely-profitable small business, even more so. I guess I don't disagree with the statement, but my response is so what? If the point is that employers should give more, we've established that small companies most likely can't because of other market forces. It wouldn't have to be voluntary measures. I'd start by getting rid of the massive tax loopholes for the top companies that both republicans and democrats continue to give. At the same time i'd give MORE tax incentives to small and medium size businesses so that they can hire more people/expand their businesses. Add qualifiers that the tax incentives require hiring or re-investment into the business or whatever if you'd like.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 09:50 AM) Labor's just another line item. The business will be more successful if you minimize labor costs as much as possible, regardless of business size. "As much as possible" is doing a lot of work for me there, but our economic system still incentivizes reducing your labor costs. Uh, yeah? No disagreement there. The lower and middle classes have been stagnant or losing ground for decades to an increasingly small percentage who hoards all the wealth. edit: did you see that video I posted earlier? go take a look, it shows how pretty much across the board, until you get to the very tail, the wealth distribution is far below what Americans think it is and think it should be. I watched it and I agree it's a huge problem. What i'm saying is that 95% of business owners can't be expected to magically raise rates for all of their employees if they want to stay in business. 95% of businesses don't have CEO's and board members hoarding tons of cash while their employees scrape by. Liberals think that's a general business problem when in reality it's a very small percent. Shifting wage inequality through broad, mandatory measures is going to hurt more people than it'll help.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) So? The calculus doesn't change: lower production costs, be it labor, materials, equipment, whatever, means you can either enjoy a larger profit margin or reduce prices and hopefully expand your market revenues. I'm trying to make this statement as amorally as possible--this is simply how our economy currently functions. Business owners need to reduce costs in all areas, and labor is typically one of the biggest costs. No, we don't. We have a mindset that an incredibly small slice of the population controls an enormous amount of the wealth and income, that this is bad for society in the long-term and that it's devastating for millions that get the short-end of the stick in the short-term. Yes, in theory you lower costs, your revenues go up and your labor should get a share of that. But given the costs of doing business in this country, that's not some easy feat. Most companies don't charge exorbitant prices with tons of excess revenue. Their prices are set by the market - competition from other businesses and the price they can demand for their product/service. The wealth shift you want can't come from middle class people. It's very limited to a small number of people who hold the ginormous amounts of wealth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) The small business owner doesn't pocket more at the end of the day if they can pay their employees less? But the focus would be more on the tiny sliver of the population who controls a huge percentage of the wealth and only stands to gain more the more wages can be depressed. Small business owners don't pocket enough to worry about whether they should be giving their employees a little bit more. Most barely make a living of their own. I agree with you the problem is fixing the income gap of the very top. But unfortunately liberals have a mindset that anyone with a little bit of money or anyone that runs a business is super mega rich and can afford to give their much more deserving employees more money/benefits.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 08:48 AM) and those very same folks the GOP is refusing to cut taxes for, giving them more and more money and more and more power to depress your wages? (this is why hardworking middle class americans shouldn't be Republicans. you've just proved it by example) Republicans want less government/taxes for everyone, not just the rich. If the middle class has lower taxes and less need to worry about paying for the poor then they rise too. I'm not at all saying that what we have right now is an acceptable system. But in talking about principles/economic beliefs that's the difference.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 08:32 AM) Who is "The Market" that is making this decision? Is it those who stand to gain more profit personally by depressing your wages as low as possible? If you're talking Fortune 500 companies sure. If you're talking about the majority of the workforce that works for small to medium businesses that don't get crazy golden parachutes for their executives and have to worry about the cost of hiring/paying for their workers, then no.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2013 -> 07:53 AM) That was the classic "Complete letdown" game I'm so used to from my teams. Illinois was the letdown game. This one they got outplayed.

Lol. Missed open dunk. This game is over.

Jesus, when does the varsity game start?

11 min played. 4 points.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 12:45 PM) I'd much rather trudge through a foot of snow to work than work a day in June without AC. +10000000. Humidity sucks.

Can't decide if I want to buy Simcity or not. I still play Simcity 4 every now and again. I'm reading that they've capped the size of the cities, which kind stinks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 12:33 PM) No projections are "for-sure," but that's a good starting point. It will unquestionably have a negative impact on the economy and, based on everything we've seen from Europe, will actually make the deficits worse. Of course politicians are trying to dramatize it, but it's foolish to minimize the impact in the way your chart did. This is going to have a real effect on real people and is the dumbest thing we can be doing right now in such a weak economy. Here's the CBO, which projects a 1.4% knock on GDP growth. That's huge. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43961 Because the CBO projections are never wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 12:26 PM) Hey so you want to actually talk economic projections or just your "gut"? Projections by who? The White House? Please. Here's a bunch of economists who, at most, say growth will be slowed. But even that isn't a for-sure projection. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112544/...erican-economy#

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) Probably because of the economic projections (and past and current experiences of Europe) that indicate that it will probably throw us into another recession. edit: and undercuts investment in future economic growth through infrastructure and scientific research. 2 f***ing %. GMAB. You remember about 8-10 years ago all those fear mongering claims of the Bush Admn? That's exactly what's going on now.

Not sure how this got derailed into a % of GDP argument. The point of that graph is that we're talking about a tiny sliver of total government spending here, and liberals are acting like the world is going to end.

Oh gawd, not the liberal made-up welfare king everyone hears about but no one really sees... Also, I love snow. If it's going to be cold, I'd rather it be snowing/snowey out.

Yeah no crap. I was ridiculed for pointing out its crapiness but now you all agree.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) Yikes. ESPN is all network from 12 a.m. to 2 p.m.?? That's sad...really sad. I'm pretty the Scott Van Pelt show was on from 12-2 (or maybe 1-2) for a while now on ESPN.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) Go ahead and ignore the absolute skyrocket under Bush... lol Who gives a crap how we got to this point, let's fix the problem.

The Sequester In One Easy Chart: