Current events discussion

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Haven't hear Stossels voice in 30 years. Just heard it 3 days ago on a flashback of a radio talk show.
Tapped play on this to listen, and said "damn that sounds like John Stossel". Time flies.

He's one of the few people left that haven't picked a side yet

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

That ish pisses me off.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Wrong...no matter how you slice it you're paid with tax dollars in a position that doesn’t add to economic growth...so you're sponging off the tax payer

Not if he's recovering dollars to cover his salary & benefits.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Not if he's recovering dollars to cover his salary & benefits.

Still a loss...and a bigger one at that if the standard to get that money is low enough to be able recover that much...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Show me exactly where I stated "jobs are available by the tens of millions"


Back up your 30k propaganda while you're at it...

44% of the US workforce doesn't earn a living wage. That is almost HALF of the jobs that exist.
There are 168.4 million people in the US workforce.
168.4M x .44 = 74.09 MILLION workers.
Of those 74.09 million, 1.06 are earning minimum wage or less.

74.09 million people that you think should just "move up". Unless you think there is some magic jelly bean field they can go to and get paid more money, they must be "moving up" into a different job.

74.09 MILLLION is MANY "tens of millions" of jobs that need to be available for all the workers to "move up" to.

Even if that sector only turned over 1/4 of its workers each year, that's almost 20 MILLION empty jobs that need to exist for people to just "move up" to

Show me just 10 million available jobs that exist in the US for these workers to "move up" to, much less 20 million.

Perhaps the question should be: "If working below living wage is just for people 'starting out in the workforce', why are almost HALF the jobs paying below a living wage?"
"Starting out" implies young people (teens to very early 20's) getting their fist job.

Are we saying that 44% of our workforce is composed of these young people? If we are, then we are wrong.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

View attachment 61849

44% of the US workforce doesn't earn a living wage. That is almost HALF of the jobs that exist.
There are 168.4 million people in the US workforce.
168.4M x .44 = 74.09 MILLION workers.
Of those 74.09 million, 1.06 are earning minimum wage or less.

74.09 million people that you think should just "move up". Unless you think there is some magic jelly bean field they can go to and get paid more money, they must be "moving up" into a different job.

74.09 MILLLION is MANY "tens of millions" of jobs that need to be available for all the workers to "move up" to.

Even if that sector only turned over 1/4 of its workers each year, that's almost 20 MILLION empty jobs that need to exist for people to just "move up" to

Show me just 10 million available jobs that exist in the US for these workers to "move up" to, much less 20 million.

Perhaps the question should be: "If working below living wage is just for people 'starting out in the workforce', why are almost HALF the jobs paying below a living wage?"
"Starting out" implies young people (teens to very early 20's) getting their fist job.

Are we saying that 44% of our workforce is composed of these young people? If we are, then we are wrong.

So I never said the tens of millions thing you claimed I did...imagine that...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

View attachment 61849

44% of the US workforce doesn't earn a living wage. That is almost HALF of the jobs that exist.
There are 168.4 million people in the US workforce.
168.4M x .44 = 74.09 MILLION workers.
Of those 74.09 million, 1.06 are earning minimum wage or less.

74.09 million people that you think should just "move up". Unless you think there is some magic jelly bean field they can go to and get paid more money, they must be "moving up" into a different job.

74.09 MILLLION is MANY "tens of millions" of jobs that need to be available for all the workers to "move up" to.

Even if that sector only turned over 1/4 of its workers each year, that's almost 20 MILLION empty jobs that need to exist for people to just "move up" to

Show me just 10 million available jobs that exist in the US for these workers to "move up" to, much less 20 million.

Perhaps the question should be: "If working below living wage is just for people 'starting out in the workforce', why are almost HALF the jobs paying below a living wage?"
"Starting out" implies young people (teens to very early 20's) getting their fist job.

Are we saying that 44% of our workforce is composed of these young people? If we are, then we are wrong.

Wow, you are really pathetic. How many hours did you just spend so you could post this horse shit? You will put all this effort and time on the clock in to prove someone wrong but it never, not one ******* time occurs to you to put the same effort and time on the clock into proving anything the left says as wrong. Why is that Rob?

However, in all your time spent on the clock trying to prove him wrong, you never show him say 10's of millions of anything. Or me. Please, stop it... get some help.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

View attachment 61849

44% of the US workforce doesn't earn a living wage. That is almost HALF of the jobs that exist.
There are 168.4 million people in the US workforce.
168.4M x .44 = 74.09 MILLION workers.
Of those 74.09 million, 1.06 are earning minimum wage or less.

74.09 million people that you think should just "move up". Unless you think there is some magic jelly bean field they can go to and get paid more money, they must be "moving up" into a different job.

74.09 MILLLION is MANY "tens of millions" of jobs that need to be available for all the workers to "move up" to.

Even if that sector only turned over 1/4 of its workers each year, that's almost 20 MILLION empty jobs that need to exist for people to just "move up" to

Show me just 10 million available jobs that exist in the US for these workers to "move up" to, much less 20 million.

Perhaps the question should be: "If working below living wage is just for people 'starting out in the workforce', why are almost HALF the jobs paying below a living wage?"
"Starting out" implies young people (teens to very early 20's) getting their fist job.

Are we saying that 44% of our workforce is composed of these young people? If we are, then we are wrong.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So I never said the tens of millions thing you claimed I did...imagine that...

You actually did, unless you never really said the workers in question should "move up" to better jobs.

Here's how our language works: If you said "half of all the people in New York City", you would be describing 4.1 million people, even if you didn't say "4.1 million people".
If you said "half of an hour", you'd be describing 30 minutes, even if you didn't directly say "30 minutes".
If you said "the tallest building in Chicago", you'd be describing Willis Tower, even if you never said "Willis Tower" or "Sears Tower" (as it used to be called).

When you talk about 44% of our workforce that can just "move up" in jobs, you are describing "tens of millions" of people, and "tens of millions" of job openings, even if you didn't say the words directly.

So show me the tens of millions of job openings, that you think people should just "move up" to in order to make a living wage or better.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You actually did, unless you never really said the workers in question should "move up" to better jobs.

Here's how our language works: If you said "half of all the people in New York City", you would be describing 4.1 million people, even if you didn't say "4.1 million people".
If you said "half of an hour", you'd be describing 30 minutes, even if you didn't directly say "30 minutes".
If you said "the tallest building in Chicago", you'd be describing Willis Tower, even if you never said "Willis Tower" or "Sears Tower" (as it used to be called).

When you talk about 44% of our workforce that can just "move up" in jobs, you are describing "tens of millions" of people, and "tens of millions" of job openings, even if you didn't say the words directly.

So show me the tens of millions of job openings, that you think people should just "move up" to in order to make a living wage or better.

How an over inflated ego works.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You are one of the people making less than minimum wage.
Or in this case, no wage. Get a job and contribute to society a little.

If you can't do it on your own, there are agencies that can help place you in a job that you can work, even while laying in bed.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Still a loss...and a bigger one at that if the standard to get that money is low enough to be able recover that much...

I don't know about that. People are always trying to cheat the system. Look at what's happening in California and Blue cities which no longer doing anything about retail theft. If the IRS didn't pursue tax evasion, it would run rampant.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

How an over inflated ego works.

Just because you can't handle basic math, don't hate on those who can.

Just be sure math can't be used to disprove your claims or ideas, and definitely try not to contradict your own words so much.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Just because you can't handle basic math, don't hate on those who can.

Just be sure math can't be used to disprove your claims or ideas, and definitely try not to contradict your own words so much.

Don't think your attempts at insults is representative of any truths.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Still a loss...and a bigger one at that if the standard to get that money is low enough to be able recover that much...

No. The average worker is expected to generate 3-5x their salary in output.
My MINIMUM requirement is to generate 3x my salary in money saved. I'm usually at 7-9x.

So whatever I get paid, the government is seeing 7-9x that money come back or not go out at all.

Don't think your attempts at insults is representative of any truths.

Says the guy who doesn't understand averages, and thinks that if you shell out $10 to reduce your expenses by $100, you've lost money