Way to go Minnesota

g under p

say is that guy's name Franklin or Franken?

Peace

jlew24asu

oops, my bad, its Franken.

pjalive21

embarassed to even admit i have family that lived in Minnesota...man St. Paul and Minneapolis has become a joke when it comes to politics

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

being succesful in business is probably last on my list of qualities i look for in a candidate. i count it against them if anything..

thats one of the dumber things I've heard in awhile.

Arnold is governor. governors are in charge of budgets. being a successful business man goes a long way in that regard.

so if you had a choice, you would vote for the candidate who failed in the real world? pure genius. :roll:

its a one party system. either way they are a business candidate. and wages reflect that. They've been stagnant for 40 years. while CEO's have seen exponential increases in salaries. they're making more money, the workers aren't.


so yeah, another business candidate is not my idea of a good choice.

its not that i would vote for the guy that failed, i would vote for the guy with no ties to Haliburton or wherever.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

being succesful in business is probably last on my list of qualities i look for in a candidate. i count it against them if anything..

thats one of the dumber things I've heard in awhile.

Arnold is governor. governors are in charge of budgets. being a successful business man goes a long way in that regard.

so if you had a choice, you would vote for the candidate who failed in the real world? pure genius. :roll:

its a one party system. either way they are a business candidate. and wages reflect that. They've been stagnant for 40 years. while CEO's have seen exponential increases in salaries. they're making more money, the workers aren't.


so yeah, another business candidate is not my idea of a good choice.

its not that i would vote for the guy that failed, i would vote for the guy with no ties to Haliburton or wherever.

wages arent stagnant. my wages have continued to go up since I started working when I was 16. you know how? hard work and determination. theres are novice idea eh?

blackredyellow

jlew24asu wrote:

wages arent stagnant. my wages have continued to go up since I started working when I was 16. you know how? hard work and determination. theres are novice idea eh?

Wages for you and me aren't stagnant... our careers/jobs are still escalating. I'm 34, and am now making more than 3 times as much as I did right out of college.

But for people our parents' age who are working the same job for the past 10-20 years, their wages aren't going up as fast as inflation and the cost of living.

It's easy to say to work harder and try for a promotion or a better job, but for a person in their mid-50's, that is easier much said than done.

jlew24asu

blackredyellow wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

wages arent stagnant. my wages have continued to go up since I started working when I was 16. you know how? hard work and determination. theres are novice idea eh?

Wages for you and me aren't stagnant... our careers/jobs are still escalating. I'm 34, and am now making more than 3 times as much as I did right out of college.

But for people our parents' age who are working the same job for the past 10-20 years, their wages aren't going up as fast as inflation and the cost of living.

It's easy to say to work harder and try for a promotion or a better job, but for a person in their mid-50's, that is easier much said than done.

bullshit. most companies provide yearly raises based on performance no matter how long you've been there. just because you are at a company a long time, doesnt mean you are entitled to shit.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

wages arent stagnant. my wages have continued to go up since I started working when I was 16. you know how? hard work and determination. theres are novice idea eh?

it doesn't surprise me i can't find a link to any study showing that, Yes, wages have been stagnant since 1979. Berkely did a study on it, and there were a few others. and they found that the average wage in the United States has not gone up, relative to inflation, since 1979. this while CEO's and managers have seen exponential increases.

Which means there has been a redistribution of wealth. Wheres the fucking right when you need them? Teabaggin for a transit system, not for the important shit I guess.

I worked at a fast food restaurant in highschool. I went on to get more an more for my labor too, advanced myself. my wages went up. its not the point.


average, nationwide, relative to inflation, wages for each industry have remained stagnant for 30 years now, according to Berkely, and others. and fuck that.

labor is slavery.

lukin2006

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Arnold does deserve way more respect the Frankin. Arnold is an extremely successful businessman prior to his political career. Frankin is more or less a laughing stock and its very hard to take him seriously.

being succesful in business is probably last on my list of qualities i look for in a candidate. i count it against them if anything..

Yeah after all you wouldn't want anybody running things who know a thing or 2 about budgets or job creating.

Kel Varnsen

Commy wrote:

I worked at a fast food restaurant in highschool. I went on to get more an more for my labor too, advanced myself. my wages went up. its not the point.


average, nationwide, relative to inflation, wages for each industry have remained stagnant for 30 years now, according to Berkely, and others. and fuck that.

labor is slavery.

Maybe that just means that wages were artifically inflated in the 70's (ie too high) and since then they have been levelling off. Did any of those studies look into that?

Sludge Factory

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Commy wrote:

I worked at a fast food restaurant in highschool. I went on to get more an more for my labor too, advanced myself. my wages went up. its not the point.


average, nationwide, relative to inflation, wages for each industry have remained stagnant for 30 years now, according to Berkely, and others. and fuck that.

labor is slavery.

Maybe that just means that wages were artifically inflated in the 70's (ie too high) and since then they have been levelling off. Did any of those studies look into that?

Considering that the dollar has lost around 98% of it's value/purchasing power (probably more now) since the early 1900's, I'd say that what you are saying is wrong.

Commy

Sludge Factory wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Maybe that just means that wages were artifically inflated in the 70's (ie too high) and since then they have been levelling off. Did any of those studies look into that?

Considering that the dollar has lost around 98% of it's value/purchasing power (probably more now) since the early 1900's, I'd say that what you are saying is wrong.

karl-i don't think wages can be to high-just my personal opinion, but i think labor is taken advantage of in every industry. to much goes to the top.

let me put it this way.

today the top 1% in the US make more than the bottom 50%
in 1998 the top 1% owned as much as the bottom %39.

ie the wealth gap is growing.

[regarding wealth distribution] In a survey of 120 major cities, New York was found to be the ninth most unequal in the world and Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami had similar inequality levels to those of Nairobi, Kenya Abidjan and Ivory Coast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oc ... ban-growth





Distribution of Income (USA)

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%
1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%
1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%
1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%
1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8%
2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%
2009 (X) (Y) (<X)




the wealth distribution is affected by a number of things, but wages and taxes play a big part in it.

and remember, CEO's and managers are seeing HUGE increases in salaries, in order to match that wages should be going up considerably as well, which they aren't.

and here we are, with wealth distribution levels comparable to Africa. its that bad.