A real wage is about 4x housing expenditures. Real benefits are group health plans that include a dental package. Some consider vested retirement plans as part of a real benefits package. Employers pay wages and benefits. Dumbass.
The shorter versions. I've read the books, and I honestly don't think the extended versions are any truer to them. In fact, there are aspects of the extended versions that are different in the book. The executions of Wormtongue and Saruman, for example.
If people are obsolete, why do companies outsource jobs? Isn't it really just that labor is so cheap there that even the increased cost of logistics doesn't offset it?
No. That's not how people "cheat". They cheat by colluding with each other on the phone while playing at the same table:
--I'm going for an open strait, what you got?
--I've got one of the cards you're waiting for.
or
--It's just you, me, and another player, I'm sure to win so keep raising.
They give political contributions to candidates and representatives that are sympathetic to the idea of allowing corporations to do whatever the hell they want. It's the opposite of intervention.
lol. It's not a controversial claim. Do you have some stats that the wealthy favor government intervention in the economy? Do you seriously think they do? Why would they?
Yes, it should be eliminated. It is a cookie jar for federal spending. On the other hand, if it is eliminated, I don't count on the feds cutting anything that needs to be cut. It's a lose-lose situation for the little guy, as usual.
While I agree with you, you have to keep in mind that there are two main opposing schools of thought on this: Keynes' and Freidman's. The wealthy favor the latter because it eschews social programs, hence they don't have to pay for them. For example, FDR's New Deal is termed "interventionist"...
Wealth distribution not being equal isn't the same as wealth being disproportionate. In other words, it's possible to have some with more money than others while wealth is proportionate (to something). At least, that is my intention with the poll. I didn't think people would confuse the difference.
Income isn't really the best measure. Better is overall assets minus debts. For example, if I had a ka-billion dollars and made some poor investments and took a loss, I would have negative income, but I'd still be rich enough to buy your wife for the night.
"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson Self-reliance
Take the poll. Discuss topics of wealth redistribution, greed, necessities for functionality, whatever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.