namelesstavern.net

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 094_2.html

This issue has been stirring for some time, but I wonder how many people actually know about it.

Seems that the whiny CEO's of big telecom are up in arms because they can't make even MORE money from the Internet.

Maybe we could prompt Comcast to host a Pay-Per-View of "the people" rallying and publically hanging the country's major CEO's. I'd pay to see that

And people wonder why I say businesses should never be allowed to grow to sizes they are now.

This is the whole Net Neutrality fight. Right now, the big telcos are winning, in part because the people voting on it are morons. Ted "The internet is a bunch of tubes!" Stevens is just one example.

We had a longass thread on this a little while ago.

I'm obviously very pro-net-neutrality, I don't believe that telcos should be able to hold other businesses hostage by forcing them to either pay higher fees or have their traffic be throttled to a crawl. It's the first step to some telco somewhere throttling content they disagree with, or that would show them negatively. Telcos should stick to just providing the backbone and bandwith, and if they want to start side businesses, let them stand on their own merits, not get an artificial and anticompetitive leg-up by tiered internet connectivity.

-Arlos

It's all about greed.

The country's major industries are collectively raking in trillions, hand over fist, in profits while so many people die from perfectly treatable ailments simply because they can't afford to PAY for the health care they need. Horse shit.

In an effort to make this a better country we've declaired a war on drugs, a war on terrorism, a war on illegal immigration... you want to make this better country? How about declaring a war on greed.

While the middle class is being intentionally and systematically distroyed... oh never mind... I'm too tired to rant any further tonight.

To look for people willing to declare a war on greed, and who went out of their way to raise up the middle class at the expense of the wealthiest citizens, you would have to go back to people like Teddy Roosevelt. Now? We have government by the rich, for the rich, and everything they do caters to the richest 1%.

Just look at the recent Republican shenanigans: The demos were trying to get a minimum wage increase passed, as it hasn't happened in almost 10 years. Someone who works a full 40 hours a week making minimum wage makes less than 11,000 a year, which is significantly BELOW the poverty line. (meanwhile, Congress has voted itself how many pay raises?). Funny, you'd think that the point of working is to keep yourself out of poverty, but based on minimum wage, you can work full time and still not make it out. Anyway, the Repubs blocked it and blocked it, until they finally tried to tie it to a repeal of the estate tax, and other benefits for the mega-wealthy. It was an election-year PR ploy, as they gave the Demos the unpalatable choices of voting for it, and letting get through tax cuts they're opposed to, or voting against it and listen to the tRepubs trumpet that the demos voted against minimum wage increase.

Absolute bullshit. Note that I say this even though my parents are well enough off that a repeal of estate taxes could greatly benefit me when they end up passing away. I still am against it, even though I would benefit by it. Why? because it's not fair.

-Arlos

Someone who works a full 40 hours a week making minimum wage makes less than 11,000 a year

Minimum wage jobs aren't there to support a family.

That won't even support 1 person, much less a family.

-Arlos

Sadly harri the bottom of the barrel deserves to get by too . You can give me they should have got an education bullshit all day but it will be a weak arguement. Think its hard to get a job now days how bad do you think it would be if everyone got the best education ?

Diekan wrote:It's all about greed.

The country's major industries are collectively raking in trillions, hand over fist, in profits while so many people die from perfectly treatable ailments simply because they can't afford to PAY for the health care they need. Horse shit.

This is not at all true. A lot of switch and telco companies have invested billions in updating Fiber lines and networks. Many have lost their shirt.

Anyways, you are comparing business and individual issues, which really do not correlate for this.

Anyways, the opponents of Net Neutrality would say its about less government regulation, which is hard to argue against, and it's easy to call people on both sides morons. It's not like either side cares about the individual.

I'm not talking about JUST the telco's - I'm talking about ALL the major type companies in the country. Record labels, oil, auto makers, so on and so forth.

Explain to me why it's logical for all these companies to have to so much money while the very people who made them what they are, are left to suffer?

Exxon Mobile - 36 billion dollars in a year in PROFIT. Would it really be so bad, would it really bankrupt them to donate 5 billion to medical research? To donate back INTO the fucking country that made them rich? Hell no it wouldn't, but you see... in the grand ole US of A - greed trumpts the value of human life.

Diekan wrote:I'm not talking about JUST the telco's - I'm talking about ALL the major type companies in the country. Record labels, oil, auto makers, so on and so forth.

Explain to me why it's logical for all these companies to have to so much money while the very people who made them what they are, are left to suffer?

Exxon Mobile - 36 billion dollars in a year in PROFIT. Would it really be so bad, would it really bankrupt them to donate 5 billion to medical research? To donate back INTO the fucking country that made them rich? Hell no it wouldn't, but you see... in the grand ole US of A - greed trumpts the value of human life.

Sure, it'd be great if all big companies donated their profts massively to health and social programs. Many companies do.

However, companies are primarily about raising their value and competing in our capitalistic society. Exxon acts like other companies act. To further their best interests.

That's capitalism, though. You didn't seem to have any issues when Exxon took an absolutele bath and lost billions in the early 90s when oil hit rock bottom prices, did you?

American companies give more and get less than others in the world. While we definitely compete and try to win, I think you go a little overboard in your greed analogies.

Well, obviously, if they're not MAKING profits, then they wouldn't be required to donate any portion of them, now would they?

Unchecked capitalism is a Very Bad Thing. I was under the impression that we had learned repeatedly in this country that complete Laissez-Faire capitalism was ultimately a large detriment to society, as it ultimately led to a very few ultra-rich, almost no middle class, lots of poor, etc. That's why they enacted all those rules and laws back when to counter the railroad barons, oil barons, etc. Funnily enough though, we're back to that today, with predictable results... our middle class is disappearing, businesses are being allowed to do whatever they want in the name of squeezing out that last half a percent of profit (offshoring jobs, raping the environment, etc.)...

We need MORE regulations on business, not less.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:Well, obviously, if they're not MAKING profits, then they wouldn't be required to donate any portion of them, now would they?

I don't really like any company being told what to do with it's profit. That is Unamerican to me.

Unchecked capitalism is a Very Bad Thing. I was under the impression that we had learned repeatedly in this country that complete Laissez-Faire capitalism was ultimately a large detriment to society, as it ultimately led to a very few ultra-rich, almost no middle class, lots of poor, etc. That's why they enacted all those rules and laws back when to counter the railroad barons, oil barons, etc. Funnily enough though, we're back to that today, with predictable results... our middle class is disappearing, businesses are being allowed to do whatever they want in the name of squeezing out that last half a percent of profit (offshoring jobs, raping the environment, etc.)...

We do not have complete Anarchistic Capitalism in any regard. We have anti trust laws. Strict regulations. Minimum wages. Lots of opportunities for small businesses. It'd be nice if we got rid of H1Bs. It'd be nice if lobbying wasn't so effective. There is room for improvement, but I don't subscribe to wholesale change and more government intervention in a socialistic manner is not the solution.

Where do we draw the line? What should we change?

arlos wrote:We need MORE regulations on business, not less.

More government. More government. More government. No thanks

Ah yes, we must categorically avoid any possible idea that might have originated from socialism, no matter how well it works. Because, you know, after all, places like Sweden have SUCH a low standard of living, and completely shitty economies... Riiiiight.

And Lyion, we USED to have lots more regulations on business than we do today. They keep getting gutted, crippled, or marginalized. My Aunt was a regional director for the EPA, and had worked for them for 35+ years, and finally retired because she was sick of how it was run now under Bush, where they couldn't go after companies that were flouting environmental laws.

-Arlos

Diekan wrote:It's all about greed.

no, it's not


it's about investing a bajillion dollars in infrastructure then having some lame governing body forcing you to share your network and not allowing you to recoup the cost of building said network

Raising the minimum wage is a horrible idea. Know what will happen?

The small businesses are the ones who will get fucked over the most. A lot of them are already struggling and/or working at a loss. Know what will happen when they have to pay higher wages? People get fired. Way to stick it to the man dude.

The larger corporations will just raise their prices. Ever wonder why things that used to cost 10 cents in the old days now cost $1.25? It's not just due to inflation.

Everyone else in every kind of business will raise their rates to compensate for all this, and pretty soon low wage workers will be right back where they started. Except that their savings are worth less since it has less purchasing power. VICTORY FOR THE PROLATERIAT!

How come I never hear people who advocate raising minimum wage ever entertain the idea of lowering taxes? Oh wait, we can't do that... we need those billions to finance pre-emptive wars, arresting and imprisoning potheads, giving humanitarian aid to African warlords, and funding pork-barrel politics. Yay.

Yamori stop making sense, we're trying to argue on the internet here.

Oh yeah, there's NO small business operating in the state of Washington, none at all, right? Guess what, they have a higher minimum wage RIGHT NOW than the one that the demos are trying to get passed as a national wage. Oh yeah, it has obviously COMPLETELY crippled that state's economy, by your logic. Sorry to inform you, but Washington's economy is doing quite well.

Your argument is typical scaremongering, completely unsupported by fact.

-Arlos

PS. Given that tikker WORKS for one of those large telcos that want to have their cake and eat it too, take his comments with a VERY large grain of salt.

arlos wrote:Oh yeah, there's NO small business operating in the state of Washington, none at all, right? Guess what, they have a higher minimum wage RIGHT NOW than the one that the demos are trying to get passed as a national wage. Oh yeah, it has obviously COMPLETELY crippled that state's economy, by your logic. Sorry to inform you, but Washington's economy is doing quite well.

Your argument is typical scaremongering, completely unsupported by fact.

-Arlos

Is the quality of life any better in Washington relative to other states for the lowest income workers? Do things at the grocery store cost the same as they do in states with lower wages? Is the employment rate better than other states? Do low income workers have more money in their savings than in other states? Is rent the same as in other states? If not, I'm confused as to what your point is.

I don't recall saying economies will be crippled, nor will there be catastrophe if the wages are raised - there have been raising minimum wages for a long time.

I'm saying it will accomplish nothing for low wage workers, and the only people who will be on the losing end of the deal will be the little guy. Simply forcing businesses to artificially pay people more money isn't going to help the problem of poverty, it will just lower the value of the dollar.

PS: The government should stop printing an increasingly large supply of currency with no actual tangible backing (ie no gold standard) that it currently creates out of thin air. I'm willing to bet this is a huge reason why the minimum wage is worth less and less as time goes on - Paco who works at Taco Bell gets payed the same $6 an hour each year, but there is more and more money being printed, so his $6 is worth less and less. No one says anything about this either... Lets blame the evil corporations instead.

It's been 9 years since the minimum wage was raised.

Unemployment rate in Washington is within half a percentage point of the national average. Costs for stuff in the grocery store is comperable with anywhere else in the country, aside from Alaska and Hawaii, obviously. Rent varies by location in the state, smaller communities it's lower than Seattle. Rents in Seattle are about 1/2-2/3 what you'd pay in San Francisco, and seem to be generally on par with what you'd pay in any large urban center.

Washington also has no state income tax either.

So yeah, methinks people living there making minimum wage are actually able to support themselves in a better fashion than people who are making the lower minimum wage elsewhere.

-Arlos

Sweden's economy has been steadily going south for a while now. They're adjusted unemployment is around 11%. It's a matter of how much longer can the prosperous sustain and continue to support the rest.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

An older but still interesting article showing Sweden's declining economy along with the rise of Ireland's.

If forcing a small business to pay it's employees $1 more an hour is going to put them out of business, they need to revisit their business model and or deserve to go under. If I had a small business and was only paying my employees minimum wage, I would feel like a slave driver. It's disgusting.

Everyone wants to tell everyone else how to spend the money they made.

Hilarious, now move to China.

If the minimum wage goes up, I'd sure like to see my salary go up the same percentage np.

Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers.

If you are an adult and thats all you can get you obviously fucked up some where along the line and deserve what you get.