David Simon, Co-creator of "The Wire," on America and capitalism

[ITG]

McDonalds should be paying more because they can afford to pay more. It's really that simple. They won't until they're told to by government through a rise in the minimum wage. By your prognosis, why even have a minimum wage at all if market dictates that individuals should subside on pittance? If flipping burgers is so simple, why not pay workers to sign up a $1 an hour? Basic services should not pay substandard wages. People living on minimum wage jobs should not be forced into poverty. You seem to think that there are other avenues and opportunities for the individuals to follow. That somehow, if they just applied themselves a little harder they're just a stone throw away from a living wage job. But you don't seem to have any understanding where the economy and job market has been heading. In many places that use to have industrial and manufacturer bases the only thing that remains is low paying service jobs. Thanks to cost cutting done by legislators who share your ideological perspective, job training programs have been slashed, making it near impossible to retrain while still supporting a family. This right-wing fairy tale that you continually tell yourself that it's not the system's fault but the individual is short sighted at its best and cold hearted at its worst.

Nine Government Investments That Made Us an Industrial Economic Leader.

Minimum wage destroys jobs. It's a protectionist barrier to job growth. Even liberal economists would agree. People fail. Accept it.

[Ace Nova]

Eventually the tables will turn. When it becomes in China's interests to start patent enforcement you'll see a change.

No offense, Downzy....but if that ever happens....the world will be a place neither you, I or your children will recognize anymore.

[downzy]

Eventually the tables will turn. When it becomes in China's interests to start patent enforcement you'll see a change.

No offense, Downzy....but if that ever happens....the world will be a place neither you, I or your children will recognize anymore.

Well, lol, I think you're being a bit dramatic. If the TPP membership proves to be a big enough of an incentive, it might make China stiffen up its patent enforcement. Another scenario arises when China holds enough patents that in order for them to be honored elsewhere they must honor foreign patents. Things can happen quickly.

[Ace Nova]

Well, lol, I think you're being a bit dramatic. If the TPP membership proves to be a big enough of an incentive, it might make China stiffen up its patent enforcement. Another scenario arises when China holds enough patents that in order for them to be honored elsewhere they must honor foreign patents. Things can happen quickly.

Nothing against China....actually, it is.....who am I kidding....

How can anyone who's government utilizes its smartest, most ingenious people to focus on copying, counterfeiting, etc....vs.....inventing, creating, etc.......ever...even come close to having enough viable "patents" to compete with the free world?

When you use your Cadillac to plow fields on a daily basis how do you expect it to compete with a Ferrari in a race?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Kasanova King

[wasted]

I guess it's whatever works. China are the factory of the world, that works for them at the moment. It's not necessarily a better place to live in than the US, but statistically Chinese people say that they are happier, mainly because their lives have got twice as good in the last decade than they thought. In the US maybe it's worse for some now. So they say they aren't happy, but their lives probably luxury compared to chinese in so many ways. In the UK the manufacturing industries gone, so for ordinary guys they can't get "a real job", it's either messing around in call centers or just moving shit from place to place. I don't know what it means really. Huawei actually designed the infrastructure of the internet, it's not only cheap ass mobile phone. I think the world works together way more than politicians want us to know.

[Ace Nova]

Huawei actually designed the infrastructure of the internet, it's not only cheap ass mobile phone. I think the world works together way more than politicians want us to know.

Wasted, I respect you as a member here but I just can't find anything close to substantiating your statement. The internet's infrastructure has been around since the early 1980's (Government use). (or even late 70's) Hawaii as a company didn't even form until 1987...and even then, it was a very small company.

They are one the most successful companies to come out of China but even their accomplishments pail in comparison to hundreds of other companies in the world. Much of their technology was copied or stolen....just like many other Chinese companies do.

The saddest story to come from Huawei is that the Chinese government has a stranglehold on them.....enough to impact global rumors.....

In the US, Huawei has been challenged due to concerns of United States security officials that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government and the Chinese People's Liberation Army,^{[139][140][141][142]} given that Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the company, served as an engineer in the army in the early 1980s.^[143] In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party raised concerns about security over Huawei’s bid for Marconi in 2005,^[141] and the company's equipment was mentioned as an alleged potential threat in a 2009 government briefing by Alex Allan, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.^[144] In December 2010, Huawei opened a Cyber Security Evaluation Centre to test its hardware and software to ensure they can withstand growing cyber security threats.^[145][146] In the U.S., some members of Congress raised questions about the company's proposed merger with communications company 3Com in 2008,^[147] and its bid for a Sprint contract in 2010.^[143] In addition, Huawei withdrew its purchase of 3Leaf systems in 2010, following a review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS).^[140]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

That's my point. Even when a decent Chinese company makes achievements on a global level....their achievements will always be in the shadow of big brother.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

Here, here we cant have a chinese back door to the internet, that job belongs to someone else.

Whatever bro....China was still figuring out the best way to harvest rice when the internet was invented.

[SoulMonster]

I think you guys are a bit outdated on Chinas and it's relation to patents. China is as of 2011 the second largest owner of patent applications in the world, behind Japan and just ahead of the US. Chinas has gone from being a copyist to being an innovator, which is also apparent if you look at scientific publication lists (2nd most publication, 8th place in citations). China is now a scientific and IPR powerhouse.

China is also not at all considered as negligent of patent laws today as they were only 10 years ago. For the most part, doing business with China involving IPR is no more a risky thing today than it is with most other countries.

[Ace Nova]

I think you guys are a bit outdated on Chinas and it's relation to patents. China is as of 2011 the second largest owner of patent applications in the world, behind Japan and just ahead of the US. Chinas has gone from being a copyist to being an innovator, which is also apparent if you look at scientific publication lists (2nd most publication, 8th place in citations). China is now a scientific and IPR powerhouse.

China is also not at all considered as negligent of patent laws today as they were only 10 years ago. For the most part, doing business with China involving IPR is no more a risky thing today than it is with most other countries.

I respect that you actually have some statistical claims to back your statement. I would like to see in what sectors, etc...and what exactly do China's patent's entail? Without doing any research whatsoever....I'm willing to guess at least half (or more) have to do with electronics - in which the base (or closer to product) technology was at one point copied.

[downzy]

Cool, nice to know SM. Thanks for the update.

[downzy]

Here, here we cant have a chinese back door to the internet, that job belongs to someone else.

Whatever bro....China was still figuring out the best way to harvest rice when the internet was invented.

And look at them go now.

You might not want to get too engaged with KK over China. Unless, of course, you share his belief that China is a failed state

[Ace Nova]

And look at them go now.

That's the same as rooting for the girl that stole your daughter's shoes, copied her routine and hit her in the leg before the dance recital.

Nice morals.

[wasted]

Huawei actually designed the infrastructure of the internet, it's not only cheap ass mobile phone. I think the world works together way more than politicians want us to know.

Wasted, I respect you as a member here but I just can't find anything close to substantiating your statement. The internet's infrastructure has been around since the early 1980's (Government use). (or even late 70's) Hawaii as a company didn't even form until 1987...and even then, it was a very small company.

They are one the most successful companies to come out of China but even their accomplishments pail in comparison to hundreds of other companies in the world. Much of their technology was copied or stolen....just like many other Chinese companies do.

The saddest story to come from Huawei is that the Chinese government has a stranglehold on them.....enough to impact global rumors.....

In the US, Huawei has been challenged due to concerns of United States security officials that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government and the Chinese People's Liberation Army,^{[139][140][141][142]} given that Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the company, served as an engineer in the army in the early 1980s.^[143] In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party raised concerns about security over Huawei’s bid for Marconi in 2005,^[141] and the company's equipment was mentioned as an alleged potential threat in a 2009 government briefing by Alex Allan, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.^[144] In December 2010, Huawei opened a Cyber Security Evaluation Centre to test its hardware and software to ensure they can withstand growing cyber security threats.^[145][146] In the U.S., some members of Congress raised questions about the company's proposed merger with communications company 3Com in 2008,^[147] and its bid for a Sprint contract in 2010.^[143] In addition, Huawei withdrew its purchase of 3Leaf systems in 2010, following a review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS).^[140]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

That's my point. Even when a decent Chinese company makes achievements on a global level....their achievements will always be in the shadow of big brother.

Huawei may just be the name of the mob phone company but definitely the same guys produce all the internet internal stuff, this is no mickey mouse outfit. I'm not that tech to know what that really means. I think what you're saying is true about how it's state controlled and they copy stuff, but they need to make stuff affordable for the china market as well, that's a big consideration. Most people buy Huawei tablets, not iPads bcos they are 35 dollars. iPads are better and made in but not affordable. most people earn 200-300 dollars a month? Another point is what Obama said recently rich chinese often move to the US, buy property send their kids to UCLA maybe never to return. So the money doesn't stay in. I think it's a mistake to look at as a direct enemy of the US or some comparable country. The numbers are really economic theories. But it's just life people don't need that much, it makes you think maybe people are getting ripped off paying 5 GBP for a big Mac. On the other hand, BYD cars are almost half the price of US brands, average americans can't really ignore the price. So whether it's a copy or not, only the well off care.

[wasted]

I think you guys are a bit outdated on Chinas and it's relation to patents. China is as of 2011 the second largest owner of patent applications in the world, behind Japan and just ahead of the US. Chinas has gone from being a copyist to being an innovator, which is also apparent if you look at scientific publication lists (2nd most publication, 8th place in citations). China is now a scientific and IPR powerhouse.

China is also not at all considered as negligent of patent laws today as they were only 10 years ago. For the most part, doing business with China involving IPR is no more a risky thing today than it is with most other countries.

I respect that you actually have some statistical claims to back your statement. I would like to see in what sectors, etc...and what exactly do China's patent's entail? Without doing any research whatsoever....I'm willing to guess at least half (or more) have to do with electronics - in which the base (or closer to product) technology was at one point copied.

I was doing something on IOT solutions other day that said that company was leading in world. But I rarely understand what I read. Poor grammitical i see it clearly.

And look at them go now.

That's the same as rooting for the girl that stole your daughter's shoes, copied her routine and hit her in the leg before the dance recital.

Nice morals.

Im not actually cheering them on just stating a fact, you should be worried.

But actually it's our western (spoiled) perspective that makes it matter more. they just need some economically solutions for them. It's like someone gave a dollar and said buy a burger. you're going to mcdonald's not Morton's. survival of the shittest.

[Ace Nova]

Huawei may just be the name of the mob phone company but definitely the same guys produce all the internet internal stuff, this is no mickey mouse outfit. I'm not that tech to know what that really means. I think what you're saying is true about how it's state controlled and they copy stuff, but they need to make stuff affordable for the china market as well, that's a big consideration. Most people buy Huawei tablets, not iPads bcos they are 35 dollars. iPads are better and made in but not affordable. most people earn 200-300 dollars a month? Another point is what Obama said recently rich chinese often move to the US, buy property send their kids to UCLA maybe never to return. So the money doesn't stay in. I think it's a mistake to look at as a direct enemy of the US or some comparable country. The numbers are really economic theories. But it's just life people don't need that much, it makes you think maybe people are getting ripped off paying 5 GBP for a big Mac. On the other hand, BYD cars are almost half the price of US brands, average americans can't really ignore the price. So whether it's a copy or not, only the well off care.

Before I go any further, let me clarify my stance on China and its people. I have absolutely nothing against Chinese people. As a matter of fact, my stance on China, if anything, is an attempt to save them from the tyranny and oppression they suffer from their authoritarian, brutal and communist government.

As far as your reasoning that the "money doesn't stay in China" philosophy....again, Wasted, out of the respect I have for you as a member of this forum ....I'll just leave it.....well.....the (maybe) 1/10 of 1% of the money that eventually comes back to the U.S. because a few of the elitist Chinese families decide to send their kids back to the U.S. for schooling does not equate to 1% of the trade imbalance that currently exists....it's not even close.

[wasted]

I think you guys are a bit outdated on Chinas and it's relation to patents. China is as of 2011 the second largest owner of patent applications in the world, behind Japan and just ahead of the US. Chinas has gone from being a copyist to being an innovator, which is also apparent if you look at scientific publication lists (2nd most publication, 8th place in citations). China is now a scientific and IPR powerhouse.

China is also not at all considered as negligent of patent laws today as they were only 10 years ago. For the most part, doing business with China involving IPR is no more a risky thing today than it is with most other countries.

I respect that you actually have some statistical claims to back your statement. I would like to see in what sectors, etc...and what exactly do China's patent's entail? Without doing any research whatsoever....I'm willing to guess at least half (or more) have to do with electronics - in which the base (or closer to product) technology was at one point copied.

I was doing something on IOT solutions other day that said that company was leading in world. But I rarely understand what I read. Poor grammitical i see it clearly.

they are big in routers from what I gather, some are worried they will have back doors built in but the ones we should be worried about are the ones we already have with the back doors already built in. Guess the nationality of company that supplies them.

Definitely china blu ray players play anything you put in it. and they don't cost much either. I think they will beat a lot of tech on price. my huawei phone cost nothing and it's as good as an iPhone. feels a bit cheaper to hold.

Huawei may just be the name of the mob phone company but definitely the same guys produce all the internet internal stuff, this is no mickey mouse outfit. I'm not that tech to know what that really means. I think what you're saying is true about how it's state controlled and they copy stuff, but they need to make stuff affordable for the china market as well, that's a big consideration. Most people buy Huawei tablets, not iPads bcos they are 35 dollars. iPads are better and made in but not affordable. most people earn 200-300 dollars a month? Another point is what Obama said recently rich chinese often move to the US, buy property send their kids to UCLA maybe never to return. So the money doesn't stay in. I think it's a mistake to look at as a direct enemy of the US or some comparable country. The numbers are really economic theories. But it's just life people don't need that much, it makes you think maybe people are getting ripped off paying 5 GBP for a big Mac. On the other hand, BYD cars are almost half the price of US brands, average americans can't really ignore the price. So whether it's a copy or not, only the well off care.

Before I go any further, let me clarify my stance on China and its people. I have absolutely nothing against Chinese people. As a matter of fact, my stance on China, if anything, is an attempt to save them from the tyranny and oppression they suffer from their authoritarian, brutal and communist government.

As far as your reasoning that the "money doesn't stay in China" philosophy....again, Wasted, out of the respect I have for you as a member of this forum ....I'll just leave it.....well.....the (maybe) 1/10 of 1% of the money that eventually comes back to the U.S. because a few of the elitist Chinese families decide to send their kids back to the U.S. for schooling does not equate to 1% of the trade imbalance that currently exists....it's not even close.

I wasn't trying to present an argument. Just an interesting thing Obama said. Actually he said China would be the poorest country in the world bcos of this. I was like pay back the 3 trillion you owe them then we talk, son...maybe china is like Gene Simmons, a benign dictator. I think the US is a plutocracy so I don't think there's much difference. All systems are flawed. mo money, mo problems.

Edited December 12, 2013 by wasted

[Ace Nova]

And look at them go now.

That's the same as rooting for the girl that stole your daughter's shoes, copied her routine and hit her in the leg before the dance recital.

Nice morals.

Im not actually cheering them on just stating a fact, you should be worried.

I'm not worried about China becoming stronger. That's their duty as a nation. They're just doing their job.

I'm worried....actually....really saddened.... that the country I was born and raised in....and the majority of its citizens are completely oblivious to the fact that.....(WARNING....PROFANITY)...... China is basically fucking us in the ass with no jelly. And we're letting it happen.....with absolutely no recourse.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Kasanova King

[wasted]

And look at them go now.

That's the same as rooting for the girl that stole your daughter's shoes, copied her routine and hit her in the leg before the dance recital.

Nice morals.

Im not actually cheering them on just stating a fact, you should be worried.

I'm not worried about China becoming stronger. That's their duty as a nation. They're just doing their job.

I'm worried....actually....really saddened.... that the country I was born and raised in....and the majority of its citizens are completely oblivious to the fact that.....(WARNING....PROFANITY)...... China is basically fucking us in the ass with no jelly. And we're letting it happen.....with absolutely no recourse.

I think the brutal, communist gov thing is a bit over stated. China isn't Iraq with no infrastructure, holes in the road and population wallowing in opium, it's a fully functioning country, with some of the most awesome public toilets you've ever seen. But what you say is true they are working their asses off to succeed. from early in the am til midnight. We're all lazy wasters compared.

Whether it will achieve the success as we define it, like a middle-class for all, high standard of living, washing machines for all type of life remains to be seen. And that's why I picked out the Obama comment about the money leaving, there's less social responsibility, it's just more of a bling life stye. Bill Gates gave a big chunk to charity, that would never happen. 40k fish heads and 5 star hotels for the baby to be born in, sure. There's not much going back in from people.

I don't see the propaganda way as the way to go. But maybe it's already happened the plutocracy of the west, the rich people just decided this was the easiest way to stay rich. out source manufacturing to china. sell the garbage back to american people reap off the profits. The 2% don't care if it's mcDonald's or BYD cars that get them paid.

Welcome to Chimerica.

[shades]

Actually he said China would be the poorest country in the world bcos of this. I was like pay back the 3 trillion you owe them then we talk, son...

I believe it's just over 1 trillion, but point taken.

When we were deciding where to piss away 2 trillion dollars in "stimulus" money a few years back, a better idea would have been to use 1 trillion to pay back China, take the other Trillion and build new, and rehab existing, factories all across America in every state to start manufacturing our own goods. that would immediately put millions of people to work building them, construction workers, laborers, design firms, tradesman of every kind. Use only American made products to do so wherever possible. Then when you had these factories built, hire a lot of these same people if need be and many more to work in these factories, set up a fair wage scale, provide health insurance and produce the same goods we have been buying from China. Quality American made products from clothes to furniture to electronics and everything in between.

The sacrifice for the sake of our own economy would be we all have to pay more money for these products of course, but we would be putting this money right back into our 'own' economy through 'our' own pockets.

As it stands we basically pissed that "shovel ready job creation" money away it seems.

Still need jobs, still have a stumbling economy, still buying Chinese shit, and still owe them a trillion dollars.

Would have been an idea to try.

[wasted]

The only reason not to do that is that its easier for the rich to profit off shipping it all out. In a way it might not make much difference to peoples standard of living, it might just be pride fucking with you. But seems like the places that make stuff are better off.

The other way is to sell the west back to them. Chevrolet, Buicks sell in china. I have a bad feeling they are made in china. But the big bosses in Chevrolet make bank. But consumables, American brands sell that lifestyle.

[PappyTron]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Maybe a 25 year old shouldn't have 3 children and then wonder why their job in fast food can't support them, let alone a wider family unit of 7.

What about the Farm Bill? I don't believe that farmers should be sudsidised by the government to artificially lower the prices of milk in order to keep them at their current prices - if the true price of milk is $6.50 per gallon then that is what the price of milk should be.

[downzy]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Maybe a 25 year old shouldn't have 3 children and then wonder why their job in fast food can't support them, let alone a wider family unit of 7.

What about the Farm Bill? I don't believe that farmers should be sudsidised by the government to artificially lower the prices of milk in order to keep them at their current prices - if the true price of milk is $6.50 per gallon then that is what the price of milk should be.

So never mind that such a policy prescription would entail greater starvation for millions in the country. No big deal, right?

[PappyTron]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Maybe a 25 year old shouldn't have 3 children and then wonder why their job in fast food can't support them, let alone a wider family unit of 7.

What about the Farm Bill? I don't believe that farmers should be sudsidised by the government to artificially lower the prices of milk in order to keep them at their current prices - if the true price of milk is $6.50 per gallon then that is what the price of milk should be.

So never mind that such a policy prescription would entail greater starvation for millions in the country. No big deal, right?

Nobody is going to starve because milk went up a couple of bucks a gallon. Stop being so melodramatic

[downzy]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Maybe a 25 year old shouldn't have 3 children and then wonder why their job in fast food can't support them, let alone a wider family unit of 7.

What about the Farm Bill? I don't believe that farmers should be sudsidised by the government to artificially lower the prices of milk in order to keep them at their current prices - if the true price of milk is $6.50 per gallon then that is what the price of milk should be.

So never mind that such a policy prescription would entail greater starvation for millions in the country. No big deal, right?

Nobody is going to starve because milk went up a couple of bucks a gallon. Stop being so melodramatic

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Edited December 12, 2013 by downzy

[PappyTron]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Maybe a 25 year old shouldn't have 3 children and then wonder why their job in fast food can't support them, let alone a wider family unit of 7.

What about the Farm Bill? I don't believe that farmers should be sudsidised by the government to artificially lower the prices of milk in order to keep them at their current prices - if the true price of milk is $6.50 per gallon then that is what the price of milk should be.

So never mind that such a policy prescription would entail greater starvation for millions in the country. No big deal, right?

Nobody is going to starve because milk went up a couple of bucks a gallon. Stop being so melodramatic

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.