Jump to content

hayden_horn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    8879
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by hayden_horn

  1. Just now, Gardner Barnes said:


    Seems like an easy cop out for the Trumpkins when he does some dipshit stuff huh?

    i think it's more of a "suck it libs!" move. they'll never admit voting for trump. it was kind of like a dude who called into jeff ward's show yesterday stating that the more ward and clements criticize trump, the more people like him like trump. it was an illuminating moment of projection and self-ownage.

  2. Just now, TornACL said:

    Is there anybody on this forum who defends Trump who actually voted for him?

    hahahaha, i don't think so. it's an amazing dynamic. they lay out for the man, but qualify that they did not vote for him, he just gets their unqualified support.

    • Like 1
  3. 27 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

    Yeah, I went overboard, but TWTR and VRX have treated me well the past 2 weeks.  I figured I may as well try the magic in other name.  I think this tank is way overdone right now on T.  I also think they will try to get the deal finalized by friday, and we'll see it drift back towards yesterday's closing price.  Then we'll have a real T party 

    i bought TWTR at $16.8574. would that i had had the cash to buy more. it's up 137%.

  4. 40 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    what's fucked about the 48-team setup is 16 groups of 3 which will play:

    matchday 1

    a vs. c

    matchday 2

    b vs. c

    matchday 3

    a vs. b

    the 3rd-seeded team will have no idea what they have to do on matchday 2 to either stay alive or win their group, and the 2nd-seeded team will have less rest before facing the 1st-seeded team.

    is there any other way to do this that does not disadvantage a group #1 seed?   i don't see how.

    it's fucking stupid and completely against the spirit of how soccer traditionally works.

  5. 4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I am stunned that Sanford lost to a candidate who so clearly aligned themselves with Trump. I thought that in today’s environment that would be impossible, even in South Carolina.

    i'm stunned that you are back again to toot trump's horn. but you totes didn't vote for him and all that.

    and yes, there is room for a conversation about why trump seems to resonate among republicans. you interested in that discussion?

    • Like 1
  6. 1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

     


    I think helping people is good and necessary but government mandated wages is economically unfeasible. It’s Econ 101.

    I’d be in favor of a guaranteed minimum income and no minimum wage.

     

    i'm living in a fake universe where employers see the societal benefit to paying their people a living wage.

  7. 48 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    And CEO to Worker pay graph for perspective 

    ceo-worker.jpg

     

    this is also a significant issue, and it's completely absurd. so much of executive pay is wrapped up in stock, that it skews the decision-making decidedly toward the short-term share price rather than the longer-term health of the company. i really think that tying executive pay to shares was a good idea in principle, but in action, it turns to shit. 

    • Like 2
  8. 6 minutes ago, staboner said:

    i think we need to reinvent public good and public infrastructure

    the universal income concepts really annoy me. 

    take the universal income and find a way to create semi public companies that will improve our cities for the better. shitloads can be done

    i think this is a fantastic idea. civilian conservation corps, writ 21st century style. of course, in the end, that's taxpayer funded labor. 

    so where's that money come from? it all points back to the haves, who better get with the program or eventually face a metaphorical financial guillotine.

  9. 1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah build me a car, and I'll pay you skilled labor rates. Flip a burger and it's min. a wage job with incremental raises of $.50 - $.75 an hour. You want more money get more training, a better job or a new skilled labor education. THAT is all on the individual, with some educational tuition help from the gov't maybe .  We are not a nanny state (yet) and if we become one we're doomed.

    yeah, ford employees didn't build a car. they were largely unskilled, single task factory workers. the equivalent of flipping a burger is fastening a handle to a car door. nevertheless...fuck, man, you missed the entire point.

    • Like 5
  10. also, check out wage growth:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

    Wage_stagnation.png

    it's from 2014, but the point remains largely the same, even in our 2018 low unemployment economy.

    Quote

    But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

    Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

    According to the BLS, the average hourly wage for non-management private-sector workers last month was $20.67, unchanged from August and 2.3% above the average wage a year earlier. That’s not much, especially when compared with the pre-Great Recession years of 2006 and 2007, when the average hourly wage often increased by around 4% year-over-year. (During the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 8%, 9% or even more year-over-year.)

    But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

     

    • Like 2
  11. Just now, Incredulity said:

    This totally dismisses the consumers role in the equation.  They demand and expect ever lower prices.  They don't give a fuck what a ton of steel, or pound of beef, or barrel of oil costs or the labor to make somthing costs.

    Yes, business want to make money.  In fact they must to survive.

    The reality is most companies compete for small profit that is driven by market forces.  One of the big market forces is the government.  The subsidization of wages as a cure for low wages.  It truely is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    consumers demand and expect lower prices because consumers aren't making more money, even as inflation does its thing. so to even break even on purchasing power, the only answer is lower prices and a race to the bottom for certain things. i agree, you're right, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.

    the better the average consumer's purchasing power, the more things that they can buy. hell, as a society, we used to actually put money into savings. many households, even in a dual income paradigm, cannot do that. now, many well-off people will say it's because poor people don't know how to manage money or whatever, but that's not the case. 78% of US households live paycheck to paycheck. think about that. 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html

    • Like 1
  12. 3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    No was the answer the judges were looking for.  Unskilled jobs are just that, instilled jobs and you don't pay living wages for unskilled labor.

    well, you are wrong. it was henry ford that said "paying good wages is not charity at all - it's the best kind of business."

    we've lost sight of that in some sectors, especially as it relates to unskilled labor. in fact, working at a fast food restaurant or a grocery store isn't unskilled. you do learn skills on the job. they may seem menial to us, but balancing your register, properly preparing food, dealing with the fucking public - all these things are actual skills.

    as a society, if we demean the least of our labor pool, and designate them to shit wages that require public assistance (that's our tax dollars, btw, let's not overlook that these corporations who treat unskilled labor like shit are basically subsidized for their labor by you and me), then we marginalize them and by doing so, we are minimizing their purchasing power, which should be part of the engine of our economy.

    but whatever.

    • Like 2
  13. 18 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    "We" are the same country that tied China and NK in the 50s and got our ass kicked in Nam in the 60s and 70s.  I'm not sure our government has had much "face" for a long time.  Asia, like Europe, has long understood that our gov't can be ham-handed, unreliable, and dysfunctional.  The real ambassadors of America are our corporations, who enter with a plan and stick with it, sometimes for the gain of the local populace, and other times to their detriment.  Maybe you've noticed how foreign nations will call CEOs directly to task without going through diplomatic channels.  You're already seeing US companies come to heel on EU views on climate change and on GDPR, and we'll benefit from that too, even though our gov't doesn't give a shit about our air and water or our privacy.

    So "we" as Americans can still go to Asia and do all the same shit we were doing before even if they think Trump is an assclown.  People, both here and abroad, wanted Obama to save us from corporatocracy.  That was the "promise" he offered, but it didn't work out. 

    of course we have face, we are the world's reserve currency, and most of our manufacturing takes place in asia. we project our military might in asia, through both bases and our navy. and, to your point, our corporations tend to run shit in asia. however, face means different things to different people, especially those in countries where the message is controlled (ahem, china, north korea), where we just legitimized a monstrous dictator in return for...nothing. that's fucking embarrassing, even aside from the face lost there. 

    11 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    I agree.  In fact, to the extent the Asian countries actually are preoccupied with face, that’s a weakness to exploit.  Trump is of course not doing that and would be about the worst vehicle ever to try to do that, but plenty of western businesses have benefited from Far East business people placing (what we would think) is undue importance on things we really don’t give a shit about.  

    of course it's a weakness to exploit. and of course, we could not capitalize on that. had our fucking president gone into this with a strict discipline and certain unwavering bullet points that needed to be met, this could have been a good thing. instead, we got a dog and pony show, which gave kim more legitimacy and positive fame than was necessary. these guys were calling each other dotard and little rocket man! we truly live in strange times.

    • Like 1
  14. 8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

    It's crazy to even entertain the thought that this is positive.  We gave up significant ground, left our South Korean allies flailing in the wind to ingratiate ourselves to arguably the lowest dictator on the 3rd world rung.  What is NK to us?   Nothing.  Yet now, they are "something."  And all the other little tin-pot dictators from Venezuela to Myanmar are thinking "maybe I should get me some nukes so I can get some American attention too."   

    And here we are, the 800 lb. gorilla doing back flips to impress a flea who offers us nothing but a photo op and the same empty promises they've sold us previously.  

    this is what i don't understand.  we just lost a shit ton of face on the asian continent, giving kim a ton of legitimacy for vague promises. traditionally, in negotiations in asia, vague promises are what we in america call "stringing you along."

    • Like 1
  15. 24 minutes ago, staboner said:

    I think we for sure moved the needle. I wonder how Un uses this back home, but one can assume it empowers him within the current confines of that regime, which in the long run is a bad thing. 

    I am all for demilitarizing that part of the world. Shit i am all for lots of demilitarization across the world. The world will fight on the intertrons and the winner will have the best comp scientists and the most creative ways to deploy them. firing off missiles and blowing shit up is so last century. 

    Left right, whatever. Trump needs to espouse human rights and democratic values. His actions tell us he doesn't give a shit and we as a country need to hold his feet to the fire for it. Too bad we are too busy locked in superfluous arguments that perpetuate our differences and don't try at all to find our commonalities (human fucking rights and democratic fucking values). fuck. this nuclear-free work break brought to you by YOUR MOM bitches

    yes, a lot of this, yall.

    but also, that yall don't understand how much face we just lost in asia...kim just pantsed us on an international stage. yall get that, right?

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...