Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
I don't take showers with dudes, only chicks. If you enjoy showers with dudes, more power to ya. I don't.I've taken showers in the same shower room with others in sports and gyms so could care less if someone sees my junk in a scan. Been through basic too where we were run through the showers like cattle.
People have the right to not consent to having their body seen naked or blasted with radiation. Anyway, it's my time, fuel and property, so I will do with it as I see fit. I enjoyed the trip, which is something that can't be said for a lot of people that went through those machines. In any event, sometimes protests are painful, and I have no other real way to protest than to not use the service.I say grow a pair and stop your whining. Stop wasting you time, money, fuel, and wear on your vehicle just to avoid a 4 second scan. Your junk isn't special; no one will remember it.
Btw, it does more than just sees your junk, but also sees private information like missing organs, proof of surgery, injuries, etc. There is a great deal of information they pick up with the use of the scan and all of it is private. Btw, the examples I used are protected by law to be private. Just so you know.
Last edited by Henrin; 09-18-14 at 10:35 AM.
I forgot I was debating the "definition of 'is' is" person.... Sorry, I'll be more careful in the future.I didn't say the role of the government was to modernize the workforce, I said it was to PROMOTE workforce modernization. I don't want the Government anywhere near the actual job of workforce modernization.
You're making baseless assertions. The key to quality of American products is competition. You've mentioned cars a couple of times, and it might not surprise you that when the auto industry had dozens of competitors, we led the world in automobile innovation, and as the industry consolidated into the big three, focus went from innovation and competing based on quality to gobbling up competitors and protecting market share through brute force.It's definitely a trade off. If cell phones and televisions were made in America then American poor wouldn't be able to afford them. It is no coincidence that American poverty was so high during the height of American protectionism, or that quality of American goods was so low.
And it's an objective question whether the low, low prices of goods at Walmart, and the offshoring of all the plants that make them, are a negative or positive for the bottom 50% or so. I'm not sure how you look at productivity and wage data from the post WWII period - where the incomes from the top to the bottom rose at roughly the same rate as productivity gains - and compare it to the free trade era where nearly ALL the real income gains have gone to the top slivers, and say 'free trade' (and that's a term that shouldn't be used to describe our trade deals - they are heavily managed trade for the benefit of the behemoths) has been good for the bottom half. Real income for the poor has declined.
It's funny - you point out the spending on the poor has increased by some unknown amount but hasn't budged rates of poverty, then you say that the post free trade era has been good for the poor who despite rising spending on their behalf are still losing ground and remaining in poverty. You want it both ways, apparently.
You didn't, but we were in a massive bubble. And construction jobs now are at about the same level as 1989 despite the population growth since that time.Where did I say they were in a bubble?
The data is in the jobs and pay and wealth figures. Here's a good article on that: Inequality: Wages, income, and time for gardening | The EconomistWell, for starters, anecdotes aren't data. How many of the hollow shells of towns were because jobs were moved over seas? Would the companies that moved over seas have survived in the market by keeping their manufacturing in that tow? What demands were made of the company by the town? Was the company financially able to meet those demands?
Bottom line is pay peaked in the 1970s, declined through the 80s and early 90s, rose a bit during the tech boom, and 40 years later is only about 5% higher than in 1970 for the bottom 40%, despite productivity gains of 2-3% PER YEAR.
So if productivity and wages grew like they did for most of our history, workers would have over double current wages on average. That might buy a few phones and TVs.
More data is in our trade imbalance. People have talked about how deficits are unsustainable. Well so is the U.S. sending $500 billion net per year overseas to buy goods.
But value is created by making stuff, growing stuff, or mining stuff and so we can't have a sustainable 'service' economy. Sustainable consumption can't in the long run be more than value created by the economy. And right now we're sending $500 billion per year overseas. That money has to come back and buy something in the U.S. Lots of that money has returned here when foreign governments and companies buy U.S. debt. But what isn't used to buy debt has to buy land or businesses or stocks or something. It's just not sustainable. That's why offshoring gets attention and the normal turnover of businesses doesn't. Besides, you're comparing the net loss of value creating manufacturing jobs to a gross number of one side of business turnover.Look at it this way: The focus on the number of companies moving jobs over seas is incredibly myopic when you compare that figure to the number of companies declaring bankruptcy each year. Nearly 35,000 companies declared bankruptcy in the US in 2013, it seems absurd that so many people want to focus on the off-shoring of jobs when the real problem is low profitability doing business in the US.
Sure, crap service jobs with low pay and benefits, which is reflected in a 40 years of stagnant at best wages.But job loss of all kinds tends to be very over stated. I have seen quotes of 8 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last 30 years. While that sounds bad, there wasn't a commensurate increase of 8 million unemployed in that same time. People found other jobs.
But construction is limited to some fairly fixed share of the economy. It boomed in the bubble, then collapsed, as it had to.If you want a labor job that want get sent over seas then work in construction. Nobody has figured out how to off shore those jobs. Granted, low pay illegals are taking a lot of construction work in the US, which is sort of like off-shoring, but we are supposed to be OK with that.
And if you're OK with sending our manufacturing jobs overseas, then I have no idea why you'd object to illegals coming here to work construction. It's the same thing accomplished through different mechanisms. It's funny - conservatives are all for the free movement of capital, so they have no problem with U.S. manufacturers closing down a plant and moving it to Vietnam where they can get workers for 30 cents per hour, but want to start a revolution over free movement of labor. I've never understood that. Certainly, big companies don't see the difference and so support loose immigration laws and offshore their manufacturing work.
To be sure, some liberals have the same problem in reverse - oppose offshoring but support immigration. I don't. I support border control measures and stringent rules on employers against hiring undocumented workers. The only limiting concern is humanitarian - for example NAFTA allows U.S. farmers to sell heavily taxpayer subsidized corn to Mexico, which has killed small farmers in Mexico, and so they come here to work because we've eliminated those jobs in Mexico.
There are many logistical and business reasons why kiosks aren't in widespread use, chief among them - per the article - is the amount of food they sell through drive-thru windows. But reading the widespread success of kiosks even with low minimum wages supports my point - when the businesses can put in machines and make them work, they'll do it whether minimum wages are $8 or $15.
But that depends on a couple of things. First is what the poverty rate would be without the spending. You've offered nothing on that. Second, you're lumping in dozens of programs, which might be a problem by itself, but the point is those programs are distinct and should be evaluated on their own merits. EITC is huge. It's different than the amount spent on Section 8 housing or low income housing credits. Do low income housing credits work? I don't have the evidence on that, but we don't discover ANYTHING about that question by looking at the poverty rate overall. And if we find that low income housing credits don't work, that says nothing about EITC or food stamps.I'm using your offered charts. With the explosion in spending you should expect more than the status quo in combating poverty, but that is what we got.
The point was you're lumping in a bunch of stuff into one basket and making sweeping conclusions. More appropriate is to do what you just did and discuss programs on their own merits. All you've done here is separate out Medicare and SS. You can also evaluate Medicaid (used heavily by poor seniors), and Social Security spending (roughly $200B per year) for the non-elderly disabled. And then look at the various components of anti-poverty spending.First, Social Security and Medicare aren't welfare even though I believe their are far better ways to invest a person's Social Security taxes than sticking them in a lock box (with a broken lock), people still pay into the system. Hell, investing that Social Security money in the stock market would have had a FAR better return for those paying into the system since the 1960s. But those two programs are what amounts to forced savings plans for the individual and did have an impact on poverty in old age. The rest of the "War on Poverty" has been a bust over the last 40 years with poverty increasing among non-elderly recipients while government aid sky rocketed. The net result is an aggregated stagnation in the poverty rate to match massive growth in spending.
Secondly, Social Security didn't increase massively in that time, and Medicare, while the single biggest program, was not even mostly responsible for the increase. It increased quite a lot, but so did everything else.
Thirdly, I don't begrudge the elderly receiving the benefit of programs they paid for.
And, again, no, the programs have only kept poverty down for a select group, the elderly. Able bodied poverty has continued to increase from the initial decline.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
You've got three variables 1) The underlying poverty rate independent of transfer payments, 2) (inflation adjusted) transfer payments (broadly speaking), and 3) the poverty rate AFTER transfer payments.
If 1) is increasing and 2) remains the same, then we'd expect 3) to increase. If 1) is increasing at rate X% and 2) is only increasing at rate (X-2%) then we'd also expect to see 3) (poverty) increasing.
Edit to add that the transfer payments have to be adjusted for inflation relevant to services used by the poor, which might be more or less than the CPI.
Last edited by JasperL; 09-18-14 at 12:18 PM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman