• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

Moderator's Warning:
OK, MORE infractions have been levied. Cease the person attacks or I will start adding thread bans to people's resumes
 
poweRob said:
True but there's nothing out there keeping someone from stealing In-n-out burgers' business model and paying $8/hour. Not that I'd think it'd work. Once you have a loyal customer base combined with a loyal strong workforce... it's hard to beat. Workers who see a future with a company actually look for more than just a paycheck. They actually care if the company to succeeds and will help provide ways to make that happen. Costco's CEO recognized this. He says because his employees are paid well, he doesn't have the internal theft issues that others have and he has lower training costs because turnover is much lower.

Our country has a vision problem. Our political system is designed to not give a damn about the future beyond their 2, 4 or 6 year next election. As far as business, publicly traded companies don't care what goes on in the next decade but rather how the next quarter looks which is why CEO's today generally aren't with the company for long at all while back prior to the 80's they were their for decades prior to being CEO of that company. In the 80's executives were then allowed to be paid in stock options narrowing the vision of the company's future. /side-rant off
Click to expand...

This is true. But Costco also has less employees per unit of sales than the Walmarts of the world. They sell in bulk, and bulk only, and if you've ever visited one of their warehouses... besides the cashiers, butchers, and food samplers it feels pretty empty. There's not an employee every isle waiting to hold your hand. Other companies may not necessarily be able to implement the same model with success. Or maybe they could, the would just have a lot less employees and that slack might be hard to pick up.
 
ReformCollege said:
This is true. But Costco also has less employees per unit of sales than the Walmarts of the world. They sell in bulk, and bulk only, and if you've ever visited one of their warehouses... besides the cashiers, butchers, and food samplers it feels pretty empty. There's not an employee every isle waiting to hold your hand. Other companies may not necessarily be able to implement the same model with success. Or maybe they could, the would just have a lot less employees and that slack might be hard to pick up.
Click to expand...

Other companies I think could implement similar business models but to do so means you have to look beyond the next quarter and have a long term vision.
 
poweRob said:
Other companies I think could implement similar business models but to do so means you have to look beyond the next quarter and have a long term vision.
Click to expand...

Well, if they aren't doing that they are really are hurting themselves. A good company would position themselves for the future. A bad company wouldn't. I don't really think the government should be getting involved, but I do think they need to change one rule. Any and all CEO/executive income, bet it issued stock, option packages, etc. should be treated as normal income. I don't mind these guys making millions of dollars a year, but it should be in the form of a straight up salary. They don't need bonuses and option packages in order to do well, they get paid millions of dollars a year with the expectation that they do well. That's always been a pet peeve of mine.
 
ReformCollege said:
Well, if they aren't doing that they are really are hurting themselves. A good company would position themselves for the future. A bad company wouldn't. I don't really think the government should be getting involved, but I do think they need to change one rule. Any and all CEO/executive income, bet it issued stock, option packages, etc. should be treated as normal income. I don't mind these guys making millions of dollars a year, but it should be in the form of a straight up salary. They don't need bonuses and option packages in order to do well, they get paid millions of dollars a year with the expectation that they do well. That's always been a pet peeve of mine.
Click to expand...

It's a bad one with me as well. It was designed to make the CEO give a damn about the stock of the company because he'd own some. Instead it practically caused the invention of vulture capitalism and executives who bring in a psychopathic CEO who fires as many people he can so the stock explodes on higher profit margins in the short term then he and the other execs bail on the company after they crippled it.
 
ReformCollege said:
First I'd like to say it really pisses me off that I'm basically having to do your work for you because all you did was a 2 minute search in google books without even reading them and called it your "proof." But, since I'm convinced that you have absolutely no argument to make here, I took the initiative to bury your argument before you could even make it.


So let's see here, you give me three books the first from 1981 and the third 1993. The first is just about as ridiculous as I've ever heard. How allopathic medicine became the model? As opposed to what? Homopathy? Acupuncture? When a guy quotes Marx more then he does any actual science on a subject about scientific medicine, that's usually the first sign of someone talking out of his ass.

The third isn't far behind, looking at "the reasons for the rise of molecular biology" in the 1920s an attempt to prove a some alternative view of biology. Give me a break, no where in the book does it actually disprove any of the current theories of biology, and instead tries to talk as if we were still in the 1960s. Skiming through the book I couldn't find any actual talk of biology in the first 60 pages, this book is more about self-promotion of the Rockefeller Foundation rather then actually containing reliable piece of information.

The second isn't as bad as the other two, and he's making a little more of a fair argument. He seems to be criticizing how the drug business runs through the pharmaceutical and medical industry. His example is how one actually has to be diagnosed as depressed in order to get SSRI's, where are St. John's root, and herb, is available over the counter. He's basically asking why do drugs have to be sold with a prescription and run through the medical industry? Well, because that is supposed to be the point of the medical industry anyways, to make a diagnosis and follow the best course of action. He asks why are they able to patent compounds that occur naturally, to which I would say because they discovered it and researched its properties. He also criticizes how protocol forces doctors to prescribe drugs that may be less effective then advertise because drug companies don't have to release their raw data. Its a good argument to make, but it doesn't actually prove one way or the other whether chemo is worse then cancer. Nor does his argument apply across the board either, presumption of guilt isn't something to be made without hard evidence. Often enough, when a pharmaceutical company covers up a drug's side effects and/or lack of efficency, it comes out at some point or another. How do you think he got the info for his book in the first place? Asking for more transparency in the drug making process is fair, claiming that some how all drugs are inheritantly tainted because of a small number of cases is quite a stretch. And a stretch that I don't see him make.

Oh, and by the way, I don't see anywhere that they claim that chemo is worse then cancer. The first tries to quote a social critic who thinks that medicine has made us sicker then we would've been without it (notice how he doesn't actually produce any evidence to back this up, it's just his "argument" based on his Marxian worldview.) Even IF that were true in 1981, that doesn't make it true today with the invention of thousands of breakthrough pharmacueticals such as anti-retrovirals for HIV patients, gene therapy, or stem cell treatments for just about..... well .... quite possibly anything. And still no proof on how your part, or any of your book's part, chemo is worse then cancer..... not a single scientific paper. So unless you're claiming that thousands of research papers, lab experiments, and double blind human trials done by both industry and public organizations are wrong about the effectiveness of chemotherapy vs. cancer, it seems you do not have a leg to stand on here.
Click to expand...

Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...

http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

Check out page 2

New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
What is this lecture about?
Marx(ism)
is dead !?
“Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
Belsey 2002
2

Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology. I think Marx is going to be more accepted in the future, after the anti-communism trends.



The books were too provide a context of our medical industry..... The molecular vision of life is about how the Rockefellers bought up medical institutions to improve their image. But instead they found out they could make a lot of money in the medical field. Eugenics, genetic determinism, surface chemistry are used to control science in the educational institutions. Keeping the students from finding other facts


The third book is about how the Rockefeller's tried to fund science in order to gain popularity among the masses. However they figured that the money made in medicine is far to much to back out. So they buy up all the institutions and put their "people" in and transform the medical culture. Genetic determinism, Eugenics, surface chemistry ( Irving Langmuir) had removed any real science from the mainstream.

The books were not to show to hard evidence that chemo is dangerous. I was only trying to fit the books within the context of the medical control under a capitalistic ideology. The problem with competition is that it eliminates the other, which happen in this case. However Soviet Science was by far the most advance in most fields.

Here is evidence on how the cancer treatments inflict more damage than people know.

Treating the Treatment: Toxicity of Cancer Chemotherapy

Many cancer chemotherapeutic agents can produce toxicity, even at the usual therapeutic doses.

CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: what... [Radiology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

It is imperative that radiologists be aware of these toxicities and that they learn to recognize the relevant findings so that they can provide a complete differential diagnosis and thus play an important role in patient care.

Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Such therapy may raise the risk of leukemia, particularly in association with certain types of adjuvant chemotherapy. Lung cancer risk is also increased, especially in cigarette smokers, and there are some indications that the risks of esophageal cancer and sarcomas may be elevated as well.

Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Many studies of radiation for treatment of benign diseases and a few studies of diagnostic radiation exposure have yielded much of the information on the risk for radiation-related cancer in children. Although most cancers can be induced by radiation, these studies demonstrate dose-related increased risks of cancer of the thyroid, breasts and brain, non-melanoma skin cancer, and leukemia.

Intensive weekly chemotherapy is not effective i... [Br J Cancer. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

The outcome of this intensive chemotherapy regimen does not support its use in pancreatic cancer.

Even Fox news has similar stories about the dangers of chemo

Does chemotherapy do more harm than good? | Fox News Video

Pharmageddon

Page 52

" Millions of people have died during this period after having radical surgery, intense radiotherapy, or intense chemotherapy."

I think the evidence is clear, The medical institutions are owned by corporations that only have their self interest. Not really helping people, however conservatives are so pro-business they should have a new slogan....I love Chemo

There have beed many researchers that have been dismiss for their work. Dr. Burzynski know for his antineoplaston therapy. Which corporations call psuedo-science

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Series
 
jag2594 said:
Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...

http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

Check out page 2

New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
What is this lecture about?
Marx(ism)
is dead !?
“Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
Belsey 2002
2

Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology. I think Marx is going to be more accepted in the future, after the anti-communism trends.



The books were too provide a context of our medical industry..... The molecular vision of life is about how the Rockefellers bought up medical institutions to improve their image. But instead they found out they could make a lot of money in the medical field. Eugenics, genetic determinism, surface chemistry are used to control science in the educational institutions. Keeping the students from finding other facts


The third book is about how the Rockefeller's tried to fund science in order to gain popularity among the masses. However they figured that the money made in medicine is far to much to back out. So they buy up all the institutions and put their "people" in and transform the medical culture. Genetic determinism, Eugenics, surface chemistry ( Irving Langmuir) had removed any real science from the mainstream.

The books were not to show to hard evidence that chemo is dangerous. I was only trying to fit the books within the context of the medical control under a capitalistic ideology. The problem with competition is that it eliminates the other, which happen in this case. However Soviet Science was by far the most advance in most fields.

Here is evidence on how the cancer treatments inflict more damage than people know.

Treating the Treatment: Toxicity of Cancer Chemotherapy

Many cancer chemotherapeutic agents can produce toxicity, even at the usual therapeutic doses.

CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: what... [Radiology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

It is imperative that radiologists be aware of these toxicities and that they learn to recognize the relevant findings so that they can provide a complete differential diagnosis and thus play an important role in patient care.

Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Such therapy may raise the risk of leukemia, particularly in association with certain types of adjuvant chemotherapy. Lung cancer risk is also increased, especially in cigarette smokers, and there are some indications that the risks of esophageal cancer and sarcomas may be elevated as well.

Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Many studies of radiation for treatment of benign diseases and a few studies of diagnostic radiation exposure have yielded much of the information on the risk for radiation-related cancer in children. Although most cancers can be induced by radiation, these studies demonstrate dose-related increased risks of cancer of the thyroid, breasts and brain, non-melanoma skin cancer, and leukemia.

Intensive weekly chemotherapy is not effective i... [Br J Cancer. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

The outcome of this intensive chemotherapy regimen does not support its use in pancreatic cancer.

Even Fox news has similar stories about the dangers of chemo

Does chemotherapy do more harm than good? | Fox News Video

Pharmageddon

Page 52

" Millions of people have died during this period after having radical surgery, intense radiotherapy, or intense chemotherapy."

I think the evidence is clear, The medical institutions are owned by corporations that only have their self interest. Not really helping people, however conservatives are so pro-business they should have a new slogan....I love Chemo

There have beed many researchers that have been dismiss for their work. Dr. Burzynski know for his antineoplaston therapy. Which corporations call psuedo-science

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Series
Click to expand...

Well, your books did not do that, for the reasons I stated. Talking about Marx theory is deviating from the subject at hand, which was your claim.

Um, yeah Chemo is dangerous. The entire point of the thing is that it is supposed to be more cytotoxic to cancer cells then human cells. Its not 100% effective all the time, but some chance is better then the inevitable death that cancer WILL bring if left untreated. So your claims that it is more dangerous than cancer are unfounded and rooted in ignorance. Its like saying millions of sick people die in a hospital, so therefore sick people shouldn't go to hospitals. Fallacious thinking, and too be honest I really wouldn't expect anything less from you at this point.
 
ReformCollege said:
Well, your books did not do that, for the reasons I stated. Talking about Marx theory is deviating from the subject at hand, which was your claim.

Um, yeah Chemo is dangerous. The entire point of the thing is that it is supposed to be more cytotoxic to cancer cells then human cells. Its not 100% effective all the time, but some chance is better then the inevitable death that cancer WILL bring if left untreated. So your claims that it is more dangerous than cancer are unfounded and rooted in ignorance. Its like saying millions of sick people die in a hospital, so therefore sick people shouldn't go to hospitals. Fallacious thinking, and too be honest I really wouldn't expect anything less from you at this point.
Click to expand...

My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
 
jag2594 said:
My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
Click to expand...

My wife and I are cancer survivors. My mother and sister are cancer survivors. You are wrong, and if anyone believes your posts then you are likely to cause needless deaths.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
My wife and I are cancer survivors. My mother and sister are cancer survivors. You are wrong, and if anyone believes your posts then you are likely to cause needless deaths.:peace
Click to expand...

I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.
 
jag2594 said:
My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
Click to expand...

So where is this phantom study of yours? And that is your grand evidence, a single study that probably shows that a single chemotherapy drug didn't work for a single cancer? Get out of here, you're bull****ting no one.

I protect no one with my life. But as someone who studies biomedicine, I know BS when I see it. First off, Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only ones involved in cancer research. Much of cancer research, and chemo research, is actually done using public resources. Do you really think that thousands upon thousands of researchers who are not employees of the a pharmaceutical company, many of whom had a friend or family member who died to cancer, would simply be paid off to push a drug that doesn't work onto the market, and every single one of them would be QUIET about it? It seems my friend, that you are the one blinded by ideological dogma.
 
jag2594 said:
I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.
Click to expand...

You are wrong because they would be DEAD following your advice.

You have been wrong every step of the way.
 
jag2594 said:
I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.
Click to expand...


Dangerous nonsense: "I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics."
 
ReformCollege said:
So where is this phantom study of yours? And that is your grand evidence, a single study that probably shows that a single chemotherapy drug didn't work for a single cancer? Get out of here, you're bull****ting no one.

I protect no one with my life. But as someone who studies biomedicine, I know BS when I see it. First off, Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only ones involved in cancer research. Much of cancer research, and chemo research, is actually done using public resources. Do you really think that thousands upon thousands of researchers who are not employees of the a pharmaceutical company, many of whom had a friend or family member who died to cancer, would simply be paid off to push a drug that doesn't work onto the market, and every single one of them would be QUIET about it? It seems my friend, that you are the one blinded by ideological dogma.
Click to expand...

I am an average guy who rather research topics than to allow a greedy doctor decide for me. I didn't list a single study I listed many. The reason why they didn't oppose to chemo is because they would lose their jobs. However most researchers are in that mindset, they rather follow the status quo than to do real researcher. Your nothing more than feeding into the corporate pockets as you defend a therapy that is known to cause health problems. What about medical marihuana, all the ergot derivatives that are extremely similar to LSD ( which was studied and now being study to cure migraine Bromo-6, lisuride.) But Again its takes courage to dismiss those who pay you well.
 
jag2594 said:
I am an average guy who rather research topics than to allow a greedy doctor decide for me. I didn't list a single study I listed many. The reason why they didn't oppose to chemo is because they would lose their jobs. However most researchers are in that mindset, they rather follow the status quo than to do real researcher. Your nothing more than feeding into the corporate pockets as you defend a therapy that is known to cause health problems. What about medical marihuana, all the ergot derivatives that are extremely similar to LSD ( which was studied and now being study to cure migraine Bromo-6, lisuride.) But Again its takes courage to dismiss those who pay you well.
Click to expand...

Um no, they wouldn't lose their jobs. They would still have surgery and radiation therapy. Not to mention, haven't you ever thought about professional integrity? If doctors were just in it for the money, they wouldn't have survived the 16 years of secondary education and the 60-80 hour work weeks.

You may do your own research, but you really do a bad job at it. Original thinking doesn't make it good thinking, I'm afraid, and here you are absolutely in the wrong. But do whatever you want. When you get cancer, refuse to go to the greedy doctor, and instead go to your local homopathogist. My heart will break for your loved ones who lost you based on your own stubborn stupidity.

Oh, and LOL. You do realize that these same researchers who are studying LSD as a treatment for migraines are the same kind of researchers who looked developed chemotherapy drugs to kill cancer? I love how you are so quick to diss them on that subject but suddenly when they say something that might get your drug of choice legalized, you're all in for it. Unfortunately, it seems you're the one who is feeding into lies.
 
Jack Hays said:
Dangerous nonsense: "I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics."
Click to expand...

He still hasn't produced this phantom study. And I'm really getting tired of putting him in his place on the subject.
 
Jack Hays said:
Dangerous nonsense: "I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics."
Click to expand...

Better yet, I'm really getting tired of spending more time trying to fix stupid then I am actually debating any subjects. But the sad fact of the world is that people like him get others killed.
 
ReformCollege said:
Better yet, I'm really getting tired of spending more time trying to fix stupid then I am actually debating any subjects. But the sad fact of the world is that people like him get others killed.
Click to expand...

That is indeed the problem.
 
McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123]

A few things. I don't expect a mcdonalds's employee to know or care about the intricacies of running a business where you make a profit on volume sale, over billions of items sold, including costs of shipping, manufacture, food processing, and sale. I don't expect them to understand or care about the simple concept of supply and demand. They seem to be dumbfounded by my request for no lettuce when I order.

Why should they be paid living wages at an entry job? Hell I would love a living wage on a no education required job so I could pay off my college that I worked my ass off for.
 
Snappo said:
Here's how I would come up with a Minimum wage.

Assumption 1: I figure the husband has to take care of himself, perhaps his wife if she is not working too, and maybe one small kid.

Assumption 2: Cost to live in USA, assuming a person cannot afford to relocated to the cheapest part of USA on a whim.
Apartment (1-2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom): $600/month
Food: $600/month
Medical copay/pharmacy: $25/month
Utilities: $200/month
Telephone: $50/month
Bus or public transportation: $200/month
Clothing and home furnishings: $200/month
Dental and eyecare: $50/month
Other expenses: $100/month

Needed take-home per family = $1400/month *AFTER* medical insurance and taxes. Therefore, before-tax wages need to be about $1900/month. $1900 divided by 160 hours of work is $12 per hour. Assuming I missed some expenses, pad in $3. So I feel a reasonable minimum wage is about $15 per hour.
Click to expand...

Well then, what do you do about jobs that only demand $6 or $7p/hr? Pay more than double the value of the work being provided? You need to go beyond just raising the wage and think about the ripple effect. Or do you believe all that will happen in a vacuum?
 
Snappo said:
Here's how I would come up with a Minimum wage.

Assumption 1: I figure the husband has to take care of himself, perhaps his wife if she is not working too, and maybe one small kid.

Assumption 2: Cost to live in USA, assuming a person cannot afford to relocated to the cheapest part of USA on a whim.
Apartment (1-2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom): $600/month
Food: $600/month
Medical copay/pharmacy: $25/month
Utilities: $200/month
Telephone: $50/month
Bus or public transportation: $200/month
Clothing and home furnishings: $200/month
Dental and eyecare: $50/month
Other expenses: $100/month

Needed take-home per family = $1400/month *AFTER* medical insurance and taxes. Therefore, before-tax wages need to be about $1900/month. $1900 divided by 160 hours of work is $12 per hour. Assuming I missed some expenses, pad in $3. So I feel a reasonable minimum wage is about $15 per hour.
Click to expand...

To achieve that minimum wage, how much value do you calculate the worker must produce for his employer? Wages aren't based on need. They are based on production.
 
ReformCollege said:
Um no, they wouldn't lose their jobs. They would still have surgery and radiation therapy. Not to mention, haven't you ever thought about professional integrity? If doctors were just in it for the money, they wouldn't have survived the 16 years of secondary education and the 60-80 hour work weeks.

You may do your own research, but you really do a bad job at it. Original thinking doesn't make it good thinking, I'm afraid, and here you are absolutely in the wrong. But do whatever you want. When you get cancer, refuse to go to the greedy doctor, and instead go to your local homopathogist. My heart will break for your loved ones who lost you based on your own stubborn stupidity.

Oh, and LOL. You do realize that these same researchers who are studying LSD as a treatment for migraines are the same kind of researchers who looked developed chemotherapy drugs to kill cancer? I love how you are so quick to diss them on that subject but suddenly when they say something that might get your drug of choice legalized, you're all in for it. Unfortunately, it seems you're the one who is feeding into lies.
Click to expand...

It doctors had integrity they wouldn't be in the business would they....

Hey at least I think outside the box, instead of believing all the lies told at the institutions funded my corporations.

I ment the original founder Albert Hofmann , Actually bromocriptine is now being used for type two diabetes, this isn't the same as find chemo drugs. Thinking of the disfunction as a whole and learning the mechanisms of diabetes isn't the same as choosing a drug based on other people interpretations. The researchers I study think Cancer is disfunction at the biochemical level. Otto Warburg's work on the cell not able to go through oxidative phosphorylation and retrieving for a more primitive metabolism is a cause of cancer. However like I said, researchers only learn what they are taught at school which funded by corporations.

Bromocriptine in type 2 diabetes mellitus
 
justabubba said:
~snip~
bull ****
my daughter graduated two years ago and now manages a medical practice. she earns a great salary, bonuses, works from home, works her own hours, and has access to vacation homes at the coast, in the mountains and in the immediate downtown of the major city in which she works
she is leaving that job at the end of the year to begin her own enterprise
my son is four years older and now earns $10,000 a week, plus expenses. he refused a full ride to college to pursue his own business. returned to school a year and a half later only because the people he ran around with were in college. realized he loved academics at that level. got his masters when his cohort received their bachelors
what i see that is different about these young adults? they are going for it. they know that the only person who can hold them back is them
Click to expand...
I hope you know that kind of success is extremely atypical. According to New York Fed, 45% of Recent graduates (22-27 with a BA), have no job or work at a low-skill job. We could debate for years about the effect of a go-getter attitude vs pure chance, but the simplest fact is that we have a nationwide game of musical chairs; if there are only 100 open jobs at any given level and 1000 applicants, it doesn't matter which ones are go-getters or not, 900 people are walking home.
~snip~
you could. but what is ever gained without risk. and i often encounter successful people who have experienced bankruptcy. they learned from it and had the motivation to refuse to allow that set back to end their pursuit of the American dream
allow me here to also make another observation. at the end of my career, probably 30% of the small business owners i was helping were legal immigrants. while a tiny portion of the nation's population, these folks comprised a disproportionate number of business entrepreneurs. and i speculate that is because they are risk takers. people who left their native country in order to have a chance at economic success in a land which provides just such an opportunity. i do wonder why native born Americans are so unable to see the prospects of opportunity in their own country that foreign born persons recognize


my only concern for you and what you have expressed is whether your fear of failure will be an impediment to your opportunities for success
don't let it be so
Click to expand...
I am personally struggling with the contradicting views of how school prepared me for success and how to actually succeed. It's not a big struggle, I always thought they were full of crap, but I truly believed that there would be at least some sort of job for me to start at, to start a career with. I know some jackasses really think they'll be getting an elevator to the top of society just because they got a degree, and I'm certainly not one of them. You may have had a different experience than me, but I personally would have a lot more money today if I had just worked McJobs instead of going to college.
 
jag2594 said:
It doctors had integrity they wouldn't be in the business would they....

Hey at least I think outside the box, instead of believing all the lies told at the institutions funded my corporations.

I ment the original founder Albert Hofmann , Actually bromocriptine is now being used for type two diabetes, this isn't the same as find chemo drugs. Thinking of the disfunction as a whole and learning the mechanisms of diabetes isn't the same as choosing a drug based on other people interpretations. The researchers I study think Cancer is disfunction at the biochemical level. Otto Warburg's work on the cell not able to go through oxidative phosphorylation and retrieving for a more primitive metabolism is a cause of cancer. However like I said, researchers only learn what they are taught at school which funded by corporations.

Bromocriptine in type 2 diabetes mellitus
Click to expand...

You're not thinking outside the box, more like thinking outside reality.
 
sawdust said:
To achieve that minimum wage, how much value do you calculate the worker must produce for his employer? Wages aren't based on need. They are based on production.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage has nothing to do with production. Minimum wage is determined by Congress. I believe they made a minimum wage to make sure that employers paid American citizens enough to live on. My above numbers show that you need $1,400 to live on for a family of three. The US Government says the poverty level for a family of three (my example) is $19,090. Your assertion is that someone must produce something to deserve a minimum wage? Firemen don't produce anything - should they make $2 an hour?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom