ummmm..no! that's a part of smarty's life i don't need a visual of. i wish him well in that department...but he can keep the details to himself, thank you very much. not sure if you're a racing fan or not..but they are talking about running him as a 4 year old, still. i plan on buying whatever foal he sires! i wish!!!
If you want to be successful, you're never going to do it working just 40 hours a week, period. Now if you want to live in a socialist country where the govt won't allow you the freedom to work as much as you wish and have as much of your hard-earned money as you should, fine. But don't bring this 35-hour work week regulation foolishness here. Don't bring the Euro-style 70 percent of your income goes to the govt. garbage to support various leeches in society dependent on the police power of govt. to provide for them from your hard work. If you want to only work 30 hours a week, do it on your own time.
Bama, I still would like a response to this- Bama please respond to this post. Bama, please define what you mean by "socialism" and "work". Please list ten countries that you consider are working and that have what you consider capitalist economic systems? Then we might be able to have a conversation, because as it is I have no idea how you define socialism versus capitalism. Is Canada a socialist system or capitalist one in your mind? How about France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy? These are sincere questions.
work- defined as an activity in which an employer pays you for services rendered. Socialism- system of govt. involving extensive govt. meddling in the economy, confiscatory taxes and a cradle-to-the-grave nanny state designed to support those unable/unwilling to work as designed. This really explains things: link
Bama, you weren't talking about a job in your original post, you were talking about a country's economic system "working" What do you mean by that? What do you consider working? Please list ten countries that you consider are working and that have what you consider capitalist economic systems?
1. The U.S. Our nation is above all others economically because we have the resources combined with capitalism and freedom to produce a powerhouse. The rest do not matter. Japan would be one of them. China another, Great Britain, the European Union if you want to call it one country, South Korea, etc. In the case of Europe, they have squelched a great deal of their potential because of their socialist govts. which overtax everything and hamstring the economies there. A great example of a state with minimal regulation, minimal resources, miminal land and yet a growing economy is Hong Kong. Remove the obstacles to entrepeneurship like most regulation and let the market govern as it should and you have miracles of growth. But unfortunately, in this country, we are going the opposite way toward the socialist realm of more govt intereference in economic affairs. We have been on a leftward tilt for most of the 20th century. If you'd really like to read a couple of good books on the subject that are not "partisan" in any way, read the The Death of Common Sense by Phillip K. Howard, which concerns excessive regulation and how it destroys quality of life and stunts economic growth. Also grab The Good Life and Its Discontents, which really explores our national psyche.
Setting socialism aside for the moment, the most significant issue I see is the lack of a liveable wage for people who do work a 40-hour week, but it isn't enough. I believe that how we treat those who are most needy among us is the greatest demonstration of our humanity and, in that, we are failing. I'm not talking about handouts here either. I'm talking about the legitimate pay for work model. We need ditch diggers and fast food service people and kitchen staff and gardeners and the like. But, if they are not paid enough to afford a place to live for their families, get healthcare benefits, get childcare for their kids and still manage to have a decent quality of life, we are failing. Not everyone can be a lawyer or doctor and we shouldn't want everyone to be that. We need people in all job skill levels to keep us going. But, if we are so hell bent on low prices for ourselves that we neglect completely the needs of those who have to do the jobs we refuse to do, we are failing as a society. That's IMO of course.
That's not going to work, Jeff. It is a fallacy. The reason why fry cooks and ditch diggers are not paid very much is the fact that you can find ANYBODY with minimal training to do either. There is a distinct lack of scarcity, so their job in the free market is not worth much. Since I can write game stories and features that are appealing to readers to draw them into the advertisements and....since there are not many of my skill level, my work is worth a good deal of money. The "living wage" would hurt both business and the very poor people you seek to help, because it would raise unemployment since it is nothing more than a govt. mandated price control, a form of socialism. link
The fact of the matter is that a living wage is also smarter for the companies that hire the employees. Yes they pay each employee less now, but people hate the work for the amount of money they get. The people leave those jobs. Turnover rate is high. Then the companies have to pay to train somebody else, then once trained that person will start off less proficient and efficient at getting the job done, until they are up to speed. They only get up to speed if they stay around long enough, and don't quit sooner. If they do get up to full speed or even faster and more efficient than their predecessor there is a good chance they will quit too, and it starts all over again. All of that costs money. I was listening to an interview with the author of this book who went around 'undercover' working at all these low paying jobs, and she said turnover is very high, and studies have been done showing that it costs more to replace rather than keep a good worker. A living wage might change that. There are a couple of fast food companies that have realized this, and selected places are starting implement the higher wage in order to decrease employee turnover. Sorry Bamma, it has little to do with socialism, and a lot to do with good smart business practices.
my business partner worked with a guy at a big downtown law firm who used to bill ridiculous hours. my friend asked him how he did that...the guy said that he would bill just for thinking about the guy's file...like at home...like in the morning when woke up and was taking a shower. "Thought about your file in the shower -- .5 hrs." ridiculous.
I once temped at some bigwig entertainment law firm in NY. They handled a number of celebrity clients. They amount they charged for a fax was amazing. I believe it was around $10 a page or something, if I remember correctly.
Bama, I would just ask you to think about what you've been saying. This whole thing started with you asserting that socialism never works. When asked to list countries who have economic systems that do "work" you cite the European Union, and then categorize their governments as socialist. I would propose that their are aspects of capitalism that promote a robust economy, like the market mechanism for distributing resources, goods, labor, capital, incentives for producing and innovation, etc. and aspects of socialism that promote a robust economy, like public education, universal healthcare, a social safety net, that maximize human potential, as well as creating a more livable society.
man, i can't argue against that. that's pretty sound logic. also...i'm pretty sure i dont want to live in a world where EVERYTHING is dictated by the bottom line.
Please don't kid yourself. Yes, there are jobs require high education and training. But to me, most of the jobs can be performed fairly with minimal training, not only fry cook and ditch diggers, but also lots of "higher" positions. I am in the IT industry and getting paid well, to become an excellent architecture or analyst might be difficult, but most of the average programmers can easily be replaced by a new college graduate or even high schooler. I hate the term of "high tech". Most of the IT industry is not high tech, most of the telecom is just commodity, and for me, some biotech are high tech, because you really need high qualification to do it well. Am I happy with well pay? Of course I am. But do I seriously think that we all deserve 10 times higher wage than average fry cook? Hell no. Why didn't they complain? That's the brain wash of the system. They were told from day one that they only deserve the minimum wage, and they can be easily replaced by an average Joe. But you know what, everyone is replacable, and many people can do a high paid job well, if they are given the chance. How long have you lived in Europe? What makes you think they hand 70% of their income to the government? You are not happy if your government "handed" your "hard-working" money to those dependants? But you are that your government handed your "hard-working" money to those high charge military contractors and "free iraqi people"? Have you even thought who's going to pay off the huge debt eventually? Knowing a little about something is much more dangerous than knowing nothing.
My point is that it is a socialist price fixing bit that will result in increased unemployment. Having govt tell companies how much they have to pay workers is ridiculous. I'm glad folks like you are not in charge, because we'd enjoy double-digit unemployment and inflation.
Having people, nevermind children, whithout food or shelter in the richest country ever to exist on the planet is absolutely inexcusible and an injustice that rivals any that exists. Money is irrelevant when you consider the human cost. If one family ends up on the street because they cannot afford rent, that is one too many.
