Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
November
(15)
- Automatic Mario: Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now"
- One of FDR's Legacies Goes Broke
- Scientists Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling
- Neil Young Sings "Fresh Prince" Theme
- Muppets Sing Bohemian Rhapsody
- The Dollar Bubble
- Ron Paul on Afghanistan
- Rand Paul Is Wrong On Guantanamo
- The Southern Avenger: Selective "Hate"
- Ron Paul: Gold, Peace, and Prosperity
- The Southern Avenger - George W. Obama
- Ron Paul on MSNBC
- Ron Paul on Financial Fraud
- The Southern Avenger: Which Way Alternative Right?
- Revolution
-
▼
November
(15)
24 comments:
Because your ideology.
huh?
It is broke because you think it is alright for corporations to hire wage slaves in China and Mexico and you think it is right for unskilled laborers to be given visas enmasse. This erodes the tax base, forces the elite to create an economic bubble hand-in-hand with the financiers. Your ideology.
Didn't the enmasse immigration for unskilled workers from europe to the US fuel the building of the US economy during the industrial revolution?
Yes, but mostly for the rich folk.
Don't make stupid comparisons. It was the 19th fucking century for crying out loud.
Tsk tsk the language but yes many, gave much, so few could benefit, even more!
having said that the average current North American peasant lives a tad better than the average 19th century one. That is until we die of cancer or heart disease at 56!
In the context of the New Deal, you mean..
The quality of life for the average american did not increase between the end of the civil war and 1890?
"The quality of life for the average american did not increase between the end of the civil war and 1890?"
American, or worker?
The average worker's wage in 1927 was 15 thousand a year for a family. Get your head out of your bum.
"When the newly arriving Irish immigrants looked for work, they found only the lowest unskilled jobs available to them. Men were hired for low-paying, physically demanding and dangerous work. Wages for unskilled jobs during the 1840s were under 75 cents a day for 10-12 hours of work. (W., p. 43) The men built canals, railroads, streets, houses and sewer systems. Many others worked on the docks or canals."
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
75 cents a day in the 1840s is the equivalent of 16 dollars a day in 2007 money.
"Women who worked in factories found the work to be dirty, low-paying and dangerous. In Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore in 1833, Irish women who worked making cotton shirts were on a piecework system. They were paid between 6-10 cents a shirt and worked about 13-14 hours a day. Since they could only make nine shirts a week, the maximum pay was about 90 cents a week"
90 cents a week circa 1840 equals 20 dollars a week in 2007 dollars.
12 dollars a week in 1892 amounts to 236 2007 dollars.
http://www.rossonhousemuseum.org/1890s_wages.html
So, forgive me if I think your "argument" is completely silly, Josh.
What your argument amounts to is a rich kid spewing spoiled nonsense, because he is totally divorced from the causes of his wealth.
The pay for a worker increased from 20 dollars a week to 236 dollars a week in a fifty year span?
Sounds like a pretty awesome increase in quality of life to me.
I'm pretty sure prices dropped during this period as well, which would only further increase the standard of living of these lucky individuals.
Actually, I better understand the causes of wealth than you do.
You believe it simply comes from a printing machine and an equal living condition could be paid for everyone without any negative or damaging consequences. You seem to think we can steal from those who build wealth and still be prosperous. You have a complete disrespect for where wealth comes from.
Your quotes make it sound like the immigrants came to America to live in destitute; such a sob story. Only, wait, what were they living in before they decided to make the dangerous voyage across the atlantic?
"The pay for a worker increased from 20 dollars a week to 236 dollars a week in a fifty year span?"
No, they were different jobs. The Irish was a poor immigrant laborer.
"I'm pretty sure prices dropped during this period as well, which would only further increase the standard of living of these lucky individuals."
I'm so glad they were lucky when compared to the slaves back home, Josh!
"You believe it simply comes from a printing machine and an equal living condition could be paid for everyone without any negative or damaging consequences."
Well, I don't know about the printing machine crap, but I definitely believe that Bill Gates does not need his billions and that each worker that produces a product is entitled to his or her fair share of the profits.
"You seem to think we can steal from those who build wealth and still be prosperous."
It is not stealing. We make the products that produce their wealth. Get your head out of your ass.
"You have a complete disrespect for where wealth comes from."
Right now the wealth is coming from a Chinese wage slave who makes 20% of the PPP of the average union benefiting American.
Again, you are divorced from the causes of the Sit Down Strikes, and hence can make the stupidest arguments.
Wealth DOES NOT COME FROM the rich. It comes from a social production process. If you want to deny this, then go ahead, but your libertard utopia will lead to revolution.
Define "fair".
Nope. I don't have to. Everyone knows what fair means.
How very fortunate it must be to be in favor of "fair" wages as a solution to the current "unfair" wages, without providing a definition what "fair" is.
Everyone thinks the income gap between the richest and poorest is unfair, but if you asked 10 different people what a fair income gap would be, you would get 10 different answers...you'd agree that this certainly is not an example of everyone knowing what fair is, but only that everyone (except the richest 1%, but they don't count) knows what fair is not, right?
"How very fortunate it must be to be in favor of "fair" wages as a solution to the current "unfair" wages, without providing a definition what "fair" is."
I have a definition of what it is. As I said, everyone knows what fair is. You just want to use the issue to cloud the issue. That is YOUR type of tactic.
"Everyone thinks the income gap between the richest and poorest is unfair, but if you asked 10 different people what a fair income gap would be, you would get 10 different answers...you'd agree that this certainly is not an example of everyone knowing what fair is, but only that everyone (except the richest 1%, but they don't count) knows what fair is not, right?"
No, there is an average.
"I have a definition of what it is."
Please, share.
"No, there is an average."
Does the average remain constant?
"Please, share."
Nope, not going to participate in your sophistry.
"Does the average remain constant?"
Yes.
Asking you to define the core principle of your argument is me practicing sophistry?
Certainly if you claim that everyone knows what fair is you must be able to define it. (again, I seem to be abnormally deficient on this topic as I couldn't hope to define fair in the context you use the term).
The average salary remains constant? You really think this?
Post a Comment