redfish961 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.

---

Nope. It's about birth.

---

I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.

---

He/they will never acknowledge that.

They think if you are a particular race, somehow you are anointed.

I was not...Served in the military because options were limited financially wise and then made it work from there.

Nothing comes for free and if it does, that's what you get...Nothing.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Why not just do all of it at once?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Why not just do all of it at once?

---

Depends on the opportunity, threat, timing, and context of the action,

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Why not just do all of it at once?

---

Depends on the opportunity, threat, timing, and context of the action,

---

So it is kind of a zero sum game on the capital side, but if you're labor then the sky's the limit. Y'all must be envious of those McDonald's workers who are constrained by nothing but their own imagination and initiative.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Complex issue no doubt. Wonder how much high levels of illegal immigration accumulated over decades depresses wages for those on the lowest economic rungs. Wouldn't come as much of a surprise that off-shoring has taken its toll, as well. Maybe we need tariffs and a wall....?

---

Interesting you say that. The problems with illegal immigration don't seem to be cleanly stated. The amount paid for those seasonal/migrant jobs has doubled over the last 10 years.

It's less about the wages and more about being able to find someone to do the labor.

Here's some reporting/article I read recently about celery farmers who've had to doubled/tripled some of the pay they offer.

Quote:

---

Worker Shortage Hurts California's Agriculture Industry

Dollar for dollar, California is the biggest agriculture economy in the country. And lately, farmers in the state have been struggling with a new problem: A shortage of workers during harvest season.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Dollar for dollar, California is the biggest agriculture economy in this country. And lately, farmers in that state have been struggling with a new kind of problem. They don't have enough workers to harvest crops. Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith of our Planet Money team went to a celery farm in California to find out more.

CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: We went to Oxnard, Calif., to talk with Tom Deardorff. His family has owned farms in this area for decades.

TOM DEARDORFF: There's probably 80 acres of celery here in the field that we're at right now. Every single stock of celery needs to get cut by hand.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: In the middle of the ocean of celery, there is a crew of about 30 workers? They walk in a row in big straw hats, hacking off celery stalks and tossing them onto this motorized platform which stretches across the field and chugs along behind them.
It is really hard and dangerous work, 10-hour days swinging a knife in the hot sun. And when the job market's strong, like it has been for the last few years, these workers have a lot of other options.

DEARDORFF: They move into - whether it's landscaping jobs, construction jobs, food service jobs.

GARCIA: So Tom Deardorff has had to compete for workers. He's raised their pay by actually quite a lot. Back in 2006, working the celery field paid about $8.70 an hour. Now it pays more than $21 an hour. We couldn't speak to any of the workers on Tom's farm. But Tom says his workers all are documented and that even doubling wages hasn't solved the labor problem.

DEARDORFF: Yeah I don't think it's an economic issue. I think it's a political issue.
GARCIA: Tom says the agriculture visas that the country offers - they're too difficult to get, they're expensive and there just aren't enough of them. Deardorff Farms used to hire more than 600 workers every year. But Tom says he can't make that happen anymore, so he's had to make changes to his business.

DEARDORFF: We've shifted away from the most labor-intensive crops - so things like vine-ripe tomatoes, we no longer grow anymore. We've also shifted a large amount of our production down into Mexico. So basically, the fact of the matter is that a foreign-born person is going to be harvesting your fruits and vegetables. So the decision is - do we want to do that within the United States, or do we want to have that foreign-born worker stay in his country and harvest your fruits and vegetables? So based on what we've seen in the political environment over the last 15 and 20 years, we have decided to go down there into Mexico.

GARCIA: And now with President Trump signaling that he wants to crack down on undocumented workers, the labor situation might get even harder.

VANEK SMITH: Even if Tom only hires documented workers, he could feel the pinch because if undocumented workers leave the area, the overall supply of farm workers goes down. So more and more farmers could find themselves moving their operations to Mexico.

GARCIA: How hard was it to make these kinds of decisions based on, like, what you were seeing?

DEARDORFF: I mean, if I was looking at spreadsheets all day long, it was a really simple decision and one we probably should have made five years before we made it. But I mean, these are ranches that my great-grandfather farmed, and we'd rather keep them active. But the economics and the politics of it are suggesting that we do otherwise. So...

VANEK SMITH: Tom says his business has become this constant calculation of how to harvest more with less because, in spite of everything - the higher pay, the different crops - his turnover rate keeps growing. Fewer and fewer of the same workers come back to his farms every year. Stacey Vanek Smith...

GARCIA: And Cardiff Garcia, NPR News, in Oxnard, Calif.

---

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/03/607996811/worker-shortage-hurts-californias-agriculture-industry
Pretty fascinating stuff.

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.

---

Nope. It's about birth.

---

I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.

---

He/they will never acknowledge that.

They think if you are a particular race, somehow you are anointed.

I was not...Served in the military because options were limited financially wise and then made it work from there.

Nothing comes for free and if it does, that's what you get...Nothing.

---

Great for you but not the poor.

---

Well, I could have been the poor had I chosen to...We were the poor.

I did not choose to remain that way.

You are the problem...Get off your ass and get something done.

I served in the military because my options were limited and your ilk is disgusting....I served for you, but your pathetic lack of self motivation disturbs me.

Eat what you kill and quit trying to steal from those that do...If you starve, look in the mirror.

You have everything in the U.S. to allow you to overcome nearly everything if you put in the effort.

If you don't, then starve because you did it to yourself.

Move to the poorest country you can find and handle it...Show your mettle...You can't because you would rather sit in your enhanced splendor that you don't even realize so you can spit venom at those that carry your sorry ass.

Would you like to meet for lunch and have a civil conversation?...Maybe we can share thoughts and get to a better understanding.

Right now, I don't think you can be any more mistaken about myself and really, I shouldn't care...You are mistaken on many people.

It's obvious, you haven't visited many great havens in any other country because there are few if any and I'm going to say none based on my experiences.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Why not just do all of it at once?

---

Depends on the opportunity, threat, timing, and context of the action,

---

So it is kind of a zero sum game on the capital side, but if you're labor then the sky's the limit. Y'all must be envious of those McDonald's workers who are constrained by nothing but their own imagination and initiative.

---

It's more complex than that. For example, every decent business professional understands the need to take care of your employees, providing them not only the resources to do their work but emotional support and proof that their work is respected by the company.

The best companies are symbiotic, to the benefit of everyone, from new hires to CEO.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.

The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.

This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.

It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".

I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.

Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.

---

---

Quote:

---

"The Left" did not post the OP.

---

You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:

That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.

You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.

I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.

Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.

You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.

There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.

Quote:

---

Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.

---

You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.

Quote:

---

What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.

All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.

---

This is an outright lie.

The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.

---

You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.

---

It's not a zero sum economy.

It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.

---

Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?

---

Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.

---

Why not just do all of it at once?

---

Depends on the opportunity, threat, timing, and context of the action,

---

So it is kind of a zero sum game on the capital side, but if you're labor then the sky's the limit. Y'all must be envious of those McDonald's workers who are constrained by nothing but their own imagination and initiative.

---

It's more complex than that. For example, every decent business professional understands the need to take care of your employees, providing them not only the resources to do their work but emotional support and proof that their work is respected by the company.

The best companies are symbiotic, to the benefit of everyone, from new hires to CEO.

---

True, but not everyone gets to work for the best or the most decent companies. Here's my point: you can't justify underpaying workers by saying the economy isn't a zero sum game. It may be true in the general sense that greater productivity has the potential to benefit everyone, but it's not true in the daily division of wealth between capital and labor. So there's a certain misdirection in Doc's argument.

---

redfish961 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.

---

Nope. It's about birth.

---

I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.

---

He/they will never acknowledge that.

They think if you are a particular race, somehow you are anointed.

I was not...Served in the military because options were limited financially wise and then made it work from there.

Nothing comes for free and if it does, that's what you get...Nothing.

---

Great for you but not the poor.

---

Well, I could have been the poor had I chosen to...We were the poor.

I did not choose to remain that way.

You are the problem...Get off your ass and get something done.

I served in the military because my options were limited and your ilk is disgusting....I served for you, but your pathetic lack of self motivation disturbs me.

Eat what you kill and quit trying to steal from those that do...If you starve, look in the mirror.

You have everything in the U.S. to allow you to overcome nearly everything if you put in the effort.

If you don't, then starve because you did it to yourself.

Move to the poorest country you can find and handle it...Show your mettle...You can't because you would rather sit in your enhanced splendor that you don't even realize so you can spit venom at those that carry your sorry ass.

Would you like to meet for lunch and have a civil conversation?...Maybe we can share thoughts and get to a better understanding.

Right now, I don't think you can be any more mistaken about myself and really, I shouldn't care...You are mistaken on many people.

It's obvious, you haven't visited many great havens in any other country because there are few if any and I'm going to say none based on my experiences.

---

Exactly!

I am so curious to know what you did in the military, and after? How would you say the military prepared you for success, or how it didn't?

Thanks for your service, and feel free to keep your private life private. If you are open to telling, that would be great. If not, I totally understand.

---

My MOS in the army was 13 F...This gives a good description : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_observers_in_the_U.S._military

This is a video that gives a pretty simple explanation: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=forward+observer+mos#id=4&vid=946cf521b3a0d89d0785a5d428410ae2&action=click

The short version is you work in small teams, are located either in advance of the front line or behind enemy lines, and the mission is to spot enemy forces and either forward information or call in artillery, mortar, close air support, or naval gunfire. Once the first round lands, you start adjusting the rounds onto the enemy until the mission is complete or things go south and then it's escape and evade.

I went to basic and advanced individual training for my MOS at Ft Sill, Ok...I then went on to jump school at Ft Benning, Ga.

I joined when I was 17 and got out when I was 20...Once I got out, I started framing houses. After about a year and a half, I was foreman of a 10 man framing crew...About 2 years later, I started my own construction company and have been at it ever since (roughly 32 years).

The military definitely set me up for success because it taught me the basic qualities necessary to do so.

Determination, loyalty, attention to detail, mental toughness (meaning the ability to keep going, even when your body is saying no). Any decision is better than no decision.

Most important is to have a sense of direction at all times...In essence, know where you are going, have a plan A, B, and C, and execute.

I truly believe most that have trouble with life lack this last quality. Without direction, you sit and spin in circles and go nowhere. To me, it is the single most important quality.

I suppose when folks tell me how hard life is, I get it, but I also know there are options and the military is a good one for nearly everyone...If they are willing to put in the work.

Some remain the same, sit in the same place and complain and whine, and others make a change, utilize options, and move forward in order to accomplish their mission.

That's the difference between success and failure and I owe the army for teaching me that.

I think even my dad will tell you, they thought my ending was either going to be prison or death until I joined the army. Then my life changed because I had direction.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.

---

Nope. It's about birth.

---

I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.

---

He/they will never acknowledge that.

They think if you are a particular race, somehow you are anointed.

I was not...Served in the military because options were limited financially wise and then made it work from there.

Nothing comes for free and if it does, that's what you get...Nothing.

---

Great for you but not the poor.

---

Well, I could have been the poor had I chosen to...We were the poor.

I did not choose to remain that way.

You are the problem...Get off your ass and get something done.

I served in the military because my options were limited and your ilk is disgusting....I served for you, but your pathetic lack of self motivation disturbs me.

Eat what you kill and quit trying to steal from those that do...If you starve, look in the mirror.

You have everything in the U.S. to allow you to overcome nearly everything if you put in the effort.

If you don't, then starve because you did it to yourself.

Move to the poorest country you can find and handle it...Show your mettle...You can't because you would rather sit in your enhanced splendor that you don't even realize so you can spit venom at those that carry your sorry ass.

Would you like to meet for lunch and have a civil conversation?...Maybe we can share thoughts and get to a better understanding.

Right now, I don't think you can be any more mistaken about myself and really, I shouldn't care...You are mistaken on many people.

It's obvious, you haven't visited many great havens in any other country because there are few if any and I'm going to say none based on my experiences.

---

Exactly!

I am so curious to know what you did in the military, and after? How would you say the military prepared you for success, or how it didn't?

Thanks for your service, and feel free to keep your private life private. If you are open to telling, that would be great. If not, I totally understand.

---

My MOS in the army was 13 F...This gives a good description : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_observers_in_the_U.S._military

This is a video that gives a pretty simple explanation: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=forward+observer+mos#id=4&vid=946cf521b3a0d89d0785a5d428410ae2&action=click

The short version is you work in small teams, are located either in advance of the front line or behind enemy lines, and the mission is to spot enemy forces and either forward information or call in artillery, mortar, close air support, or naval gunfire. Once the first round lands, you start adjusting the rounds onto the enemy until the mission is complete or things go south and then it's escape and evade.

I went to basic and advanced individual training for my MOS at Ft Sill, Ok...I then went on to jump school at Ft Benning, Ga.

I joined when I was 17 and got out when I was 20...Once I got out, I started framing houses. After about a year and a half, I was foreman of a 10 man framing crew...About 2 years later, I started my own construction company and have been at it ever since (roughly 32 years).

The military definitely set me up for success because it taught me the basic qualities necessary to do so.

Determination, loyalty, attention to detail, mental toughness (meaning the ability to keep going, even when your body is saying no). Any decision is better than no decision.

Most important is to have a sense of direction at all times...In essence, know where you are going, have a plan A, B, and C, and execute.

I truly believe most that have trouble with life lack this last quality. Without direction, you sit and spin in circles and go nowhere. To me, it is the single most important quality.

I suppose when folks tell me how hard life is, I get it, but I also know there are options and the military is a good one for nearly everyone...If they are willing to put in the work.

Some remain the same, sit in the same place and complain and whine, and others make a change, utilize options, and move forward in order to accomplish their mission.

That's the difference between success and failure and I owe the army for teaching me that.

I think even my dad will tell you, they thought my ending was either going to be prison or death until I joined the army. Then my life changed because I had direction.

---

I love it. Great adventure you have been living. Lots of tough choices and lots of hard work, but the results speak for themselves.

Character is always more valuable than skill set.

Thanks for telling us your story.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

And that's it...You attribute your "success" to being lucky and riding on the coat tails of others. No wonder you feel guilty and entitled.

Some of us decided to forge our own path, regardless of the circumstances thrown our way and the obstacles we had to overcome.

When you ride coat tails and don't put in the effort....You get coat tails.

It's not hard to understand.

---

Gruvin said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

as a man of Christ, none of it is ever yours to claim sir

I am who i am by the grace of God and the choices I have made... i do my best to love my neighbor as Christ loves me, the one life you touch today could change the world tomorrow.

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

And that's it...You attribute your "success" to being lucky and riding on the coat tails of others. No wonder you feel guilty and entitled.

Some of us decided to forge our own path, regardless of the circumstances thrown our way and the obstacles we had to overcome.

When you ride coat tails and don't put in the effort....You get coat tails.

It's not hard to understand.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

Suspect your 'success ' is proportional to your vodka consumption.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

Suspect your 'success ' is proportional to your vodka consumption.

---

Is that called for?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

And that's it...You attribute your "success" to being lucky and riding on the coat tails of others. No wonder you feel guilty and entitled.

Some of us decided to forge our own path, regardless of the circumstances thrown our way and the obstacles we had to overcome.

When you ride coat tails and don't put in the effort....You get coat tails.

It's not hard to understand.

---

I've been blessed beyond belief. I was born to amazing parents who loved me and told me I could do anything, but also pushed me to actually do it.

They modeled love for each other and love for me. My father worked a ****ty job because it had good insurance -because as a cancer survivor, i needed it.

I'm pretty blessed with intelligence. I love reading and questioning everything.

Every time I've worked hard, it has paid off. Every time.

That's not the case with a LOT of people. I see it every day. I work my ass off every day. I work with my hands and my mind. I work hard to serve others.

But it's all a blessing. I haven't really EARNED any of it. That's an illusion.

I'm glad you're proud. Sounds like you have a lot to be proud of. You've accomplished a lot. But that's not the case for everyone.

Trump says he's a self-made man. Do you think he's right?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

And that's it...You attribute your "success" to being lucky and riding on the coat tails of others. No wonder you feel guilty and entitled.

Some of us decided to forge our own path, regardless of the circumstances thrown our way and the obstacles we had to overcome.

When you ride coat tails and don't put in the effort....You get coat tails.

It's not hard to understand.

---

"Feel entitled " "Ride coat tails". What are blabbing about? Those are straw men.
I am smart enough to know I live a life of gratitude for the grace I received simply by being born where I was. . That's not entitlement and not on coat tails. I am acknowledging the grace of being born where I was born.

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Lord you are accident of birth and think you hit a triple.

---

Good grief....you certainly have your excuses all figured out.

---

Excuses? I'm not following you.
90% of Who I am and what I have is being born white, Methodist, in the USA, to good parents. None of my success is mine to claim.

---

And that's it...You attribute your "success" to being lucky and riding on the coat tails of others. No wonder you feel guilty and entitled.

Some of us decided to forge our own path, regardless of the circumstances thrown our way and the obstacles we had to overcome.

When you ride coat tails and don't put in the effort....You get coat tails.

It's not hard to understand.

---

I've been blessed beyond belief. I was born to amazing parents who loved me and told me I could do anything, but also pushed me to actually do it.

They modeled love for each other and love for me. My father worked a ****ty job because it had good insurance -because as a cancer survivor, i needed it.

I'm pretty blessed with intelligence. I love reading and questioning everything.

Every time I've worked hard, it has paid off. Every time.

That's not the case with a LOT of people. I see it every day. I work my ass off every day. I work with my hands and my mind. I work hard to serve others.

But it's all a blessing. I haven't really EARNED any of it. That's an illusion.

I'm glad you're proud. Sounds like you have a lot to be proud of. You've accomplished a lot. But that's not the case for everyone.

Trump says he's a self-made man. Do you think he's right?

---

I see. So the only people who can "earn" it are those born poor or with no parents or with darker skin pigment? Sound about right?

---