Why do people around the world want so baddly to come to America? I used to be on of them, and like them i believed that the streets here were made out of gold. i was proved wrong. but still why do people come here both legally and illegally?

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave :)

Hate my replies being deleted. It was a question, damn it! :bugeye:
Nobody I know of my friends would want to live in the USA, so I asked the original post Do they?

Some mods having a bad morning?

Yes they do. There are tons of people trying to get into America.
Imagine living in a country where standards are so low that the power constantly goes out.
There is no place you can go that will support your family.
There is no place you can go that will allow you to earn money to support your family.

America is a survival of the fittest country.
The fittest are those who are able to move upwards from no finances to lots of finances.
As bad as that is, this process is easier in America than it is in any other country on the planet.
A person starting on the bottom will be able to move upwards with less effort. (Not that it doesn't take a ton of effort. It still does because of the way it is set up.

This is not the land of the free. It can be closer to it if you are fit.


People at the bottom who do not move upwards financially still have a better standard of living in America than most other countries.
It is virtually impossible to find somebody in America that does not have electricity or indoor plumbing. Growing up in America, I have never heard of hand washing clothes. I thought that a washing machine was the only way to wash clothes until I travelled abroad.
I found that in many places, most everybody hand washes their clothes, and washing machines are rare.


The bottom lion is that there are many ways that America is way shittier than other countries. There are many ways America serves your individual needs better than other countries.


When you weigh the shittyness of America against the services you are getting in America, you decied if it is worth living here over where you are presently living.

We have a rapidly growing mexican population here in Alabama. When I used to work at a grocery store, they would send money orders to their families in Mexico. I asked one day what you could get with $400 American money. The man said a brand new car... I think that could be a reason to live in America. For them at least.

We have a rapidly growing mexican population here in Alabama. When I used to work at a grocery store, they would send money orders to their families in Mexico. I asked one day what you could get with $400 American money. The man said a brand new car... I think that could be a reason to live in America. For them at least.
Some idiot made a guide book for mexicans, to help them cross the border. All imigrants like that are takign awya our kob aportunaties. they reproduce in order to stay here if they get cought. If the kid was born here, then he or she is a citizen. And US is so nice, they don't want to live a kid without parent. And belief me if the goverment wanted, they wold have found all of the people who are here illegally faster then it takes to turn on TV.

America hires mexican seasonal farm slaves because no American in their right mind would do these shit jobs for the amount that the farm slaves are getting.
That's because America is set up in away that cannot afford to pay people well to do crap labor. If you give a slave to much especially in terms of education, guess what? No more slave.

Another example is waiters. Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.




Dear Marta666,
YOU WROTE: "All imigrants like that are takign awya our kob aportunaties."


In my city alone, I see streets that need to be cleaned roads that need to be constructed and repaired to accomodate all the traffic. I see nothing but jobs. I see sick people that need to be treated, and children that need to be educated. Those are just a few examples.

In order to fix all these problems, somebody must do the 'JOB'. Somebody needs to clean the environment, fix the roads, treat the sick, teach the kids, and the list goes on. Do we have enough people doing these jobs? NO! Why? Because we are too busy doing other jobs. Selling useless products door to door, making movies, developing video games, manufacturing more cars, and the list goes on.

After all, why address the needs of treating the sick when there are more important needs like developing better vidoe games?


It sounds like you don't want immigrants to cross the border.
From what I am getting out of your post, immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans.
In other words, you would rather do the jobs yourself than let somebody else do it for you.


What job opportunities are they taking away?
Who decides who has the right to whatever so called 'job opportunities' you are refering to?
Who gave America ownership of this land so that they can decide who and who may not reside within the borders?
Was it Jesus?


You claim the government can find all of these horrible people anytime they wanted to, and send them back to their lives of misfortune. After all, supporting them is cramping our standard of living.
How would the government find all these people? Is the government really that intelligent?
Are they intelligent enough to think of better ways to address the social problems and all the jobs that need to be done?

I suppose you believe that if we allow anybody to come into America, we will have more problems? That is after all what seems to be your personality type.

More people coming to America does not mean a greater variety of life, more people to address issues, more progressive ideas, more excitement, greater opportunity for everybody, more beautiful cleaner environment, a vast lucrative high standard of living and world expansion, and the list goes on, and the list goes on.

All it means to you is probably 'over population' less jobs, more problems, and more pollution.

Born and raised in the US.

I've seen the worst of Mexico and Southeast Asia. I've helped to support Vietnamese boat people and my family sponsored refugees from WWII Europe.

I've also seen the ingratitude of a German exchange student I sponsored half a dozen years ago.

Two reasons for coming to the US:
Opportunity Political freedomTwo reasons for not coming to the US:
Hard work Self responsibility

Political freedom? :D :D ROFL
sorry.. I shut up, it's just.. :D

I used to be on of them, and like them i believed that the streets here were made out of gold.

No. Streets here are made out of slime and opportunity. I understand why people from troubled countries come here. I don't understand why Europeans from more or less stable countries come here. You're young. Wait a few years, then ask yourself: what are you doing in America that you couldn't do in your fatherland if you stayed there? For now, hold your breath and if you want go back to where you came from. European air is certainly better.

For me, heheh, coming to America completely changed my life. I would not make the same choices if I stayed; the same opportunities and financial comforts for higher education and other things simply aren't there in the country from which I came.

Political freedom?
sorry.. I shut up, it's just.Latvia, huh? Why do so many Latvians imigrate to the US and wind up in the Chicago area?

You must long for the days of Soviet rule. Oh! My bad. You're not old enough. :D

Political freedom? ROFL

What makes you think there is no political freedom in America?

Cool Skill:

People at the bottom who do not move upwards financially still have a better standard of living in America than most other countries
Yes, and these people spend all that free time in America posting threads about:

Being oppressed.
the capitalist being a pig.
Damn the Americans, its hard being a colored in this place.
They system hates me
Woe is me, I get conned by the telephone, television, payroll, computer, sanitation departments because I'm a colored.
The police are pre-emptive and stick me in jail because I'm a colored
I got fired because I’m a colored, can’t enter Yale because I’m a colored.


Sound familiar?

Why do people globally malign this country and yet die to be here?

Because at the root, we're all selfish, greedy "capitalists" economically programmed to want what is best for himself.
We only soften these 'ugly truths' with the altruism of religion and “compassion" or by distorting our useless ineptitude into complaints of being victimized.

You know, by the system.

You claim that people who discuss being oppressed and taken advantage of by large companies are upset because deep down inside they are greedy capitalists.

Why is it necessary to be a greedy capitalist to acknowledge the fact that you are being oppressed and constantly victimized by those who should be serving you?

What makes you think there is no political freedom in America?

the fact that your secret police can gain access to your home and all your posessions with absolutely no grounds at all in order to gain(plant) enough evidence to send you off to guintanemo prison where you serve a life sentence with daily torture routines and no trial to even prove you did anything

all for things as simple as planning to distrupt your dictators holiday by protesting

Yes, there is little use of political freedom if there is such a limited civil freedom which in itself limits political freedom.
Anyways, the USA has been going to a police state country for some time now.

marv, I'm not as young as I wish to be and there were many good things in the USSR together with the many quite awfully bad things. Same as everywhere (I guess).
p.s. Don't know about other latvians, people are stupid everywhere (now I assume).

Because people get what they deserve. If you work hard you get your money and if you have money in the US then you rule :m:

America hires mexican seasonal farm slaves because no American in their right mind would do these shit jobs for the amount that the farm slaves are getting.

Well $400 a week isn't too bad. That's around $10 an hour after taxes. Yeah, it's not super wonderful, but that's what most jobs pay anyways.


Another example is waiters. Restaurants are allowed to be paid way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.

Actually waiters and bartenders get paid so low because of the money they make it tips. Some places offer a nice hourly wage but you have to share the tips with the company, or you get paid below minimum wage but you get to keep all your tips. Keeping the tips is more profitable. Certain jobs like that is where it's better to have a job that offers more hours per day than dollars per hour as you'll make more money that way.


the fact that your secret police can gain access to your home and all your posessions with absolutely no grounds at all in order to gain(plant) enough evidence to send you off to guintanemo prison where you serve a life sentence with daily torture routines and no trial to even prove you did anything

Yeah right, the Patriot Act does nothing of the sort. It helps our country! Nobody would ever allow such a thing here in America! We have nothing to fear from our government which is why we should get rid of our right to bear arms. Guns are bad. You people are just too paranoid! (sarcasm)

- N

If Mexican labor was cut off, then we'd either outsource our food production to Mexico or more likely we'd buy/develop better farm equipment.
The same goes for factory labor.

As to domestic labor, those are jobs that they're taking from kids of all people. There was a time not long ago when kids mowed the lawn and served you burgers... So I don't see why they can't do it again... and if anything it's better for kids to start out with humble jobs like that.


So why come to America? We're an exciting country to belong to... we're a very stable country to belong to... we're very easy to immigrate to...

I can't think of any serious reason why you'd not come to the US in favor of another country. Especially if you're educated and motivated... if you're without any skill and lazy, then we're a good place to subsist in... but you'll never live well.

Actually waiters and bartenders get paid so low because of the money they make it tips. Some places offer a nice hourly wage but you have to share the tips with the company, or you get paid below minimum wage but you get to keep all your tips. Keeping the tips is more profitable. Certain jobs like that is where it's better to have a job that offers more hours per day than dollars per hour as you'll make more money that way.

- N

Absolutely correct I worked as a bartender and waiter for years (while in school) because it was fast money. My best night bartending (at a beer and shot bar with live music) I made $330 in tips in 7 hours a normal night I made around $100 cash, no taxes. Oh poor student who got paid below minimum wage :p

Television...duh.

when i was a young kid, say 10-14 i was so in love with america that i udes to sometimes speak in a americany accet to strangers when i went to a big city here to make em think i was one

i loved all the skycrapers, and even the flyovers over overs....all the neon lit cities, the big cars....EVERYTHING

begged my mum to tak me to disneyworld. and read all those supermen fantastic four
spiderman etc comics

then...when i went to live in London at 15 i got turned onto LSd and had my eyes opened about how wonderful Nature is....THEn as the years went i see now what a fukup is america. the land of the FAT, the greedy, the most ignorant ruddy race of people ever to hit the planet....however, i do LOVe the music that came from there....from the white's slaves, Blues, Jazz, Rock, Hip Hop....love the scenary...the vastness of the place. but i worry what BushCo is gonna further do to make a shithole of it all

the fact that your secret police can gain access to your home and all your posessions with absolutely no grounds at all in order to gain(plant) enough evidence to send you off to guintanemo prison where you serve a life sentence with daily torture routines and no trial to even prove you did anything

That does not infringe political freedom. The act is necessary since we're at war. Other countries take away some civil liberties (concerning privacy) when at war, too. Nothing new. /Yawn. What does the Patriot Act have to do with protesters?
Besides, what do you propose we do instead? No gov't abuses so that citizens can live in rosy warm sleezy mush? Not fun.


Yes, there is little use of political freedom if there is such a limited civil freedom which in itself limits political freedom.
Anyways, the USA has been going to a police state country for some time now.

Ah so you admit there is political freedom here. Good good. Note that we are a police state by choice. Majority voted for Bush; says enough. How are we not politically free to vote for whomever we want and say whatever we want about our politics? Civil freedom isn't limited for a great majority. True, some Arabs are suspected; but not all Arabs, only some few (dozens?). The rest of America lives happy. How is our civil freedom "sooo" limited?

Note that we are a police state by choice.
Yes, I understand that and it is perfectly fine with me. Establish matriachy for all I care. But please don't try to force the choice of your citizens to other countries.
Some maybe enjoy theocracy, some monarchy.

Why, other countires have been doing just that for hundreds of years. Conquering is no longer allowed, so we have to find other means and conquer de facto, without calling it what it really is.
What's wrong with matriarchy?

What's wrong with matriarchy?
I didn't say anything was.

Conquering is no longer allowed, so we have to find other means and conquer de facto, without calling it what it really is.
aaw! Then please don't feel bad when everybody hates and wants to kill you, nukehead.

We don't feel too bad. We use that to legitimise our conquests. Can't you see that yet?

By legitimise you mean brainwashing american public a.k.a. Fox News? Don't really care while you stay 6000km from me.
Cheers!

No by ligitimise I mean whining to the rest of the world about poor Americans.

Well if you don't care then don't start the whole question at all. Cheers.

It is SO VERy easy to not let it bother you that some people with brown skin are carted off and encaged without any LEGAL justification. and then TORTURED

what kind of people have you become that now you take this in your stride?...and didn't someone yawn?....would you want it to happen to YOU? really think about thiswould you want it to happen to your son? your friend? your dad?

so WHy are you accepting it?

for what. FREEDOM? for who?

We don't live in a police state. Of you think we do, then you don't know what one is.

Too bad he can't ta... Pardon, he can(!) take a short trip to the past, to USSR.
I present you -> BELORUSSIA!

We even have a platform by the border where tourists too afraid to venture in that country can watch it from above. :rolleyes: :D

We don't live in a police state. Of you think we do, then you don't know what one is.

d__am trying to understand the labyrinthe of your mind.....

you already have heard me speak of brown people of another religion being taken OFf the streets, and incarcerated for no reason but some vague suspicion, and tortued, not being allowed ANy legal help....right?................THEN you come with 'we do not live in a police state'.....WHO is 'we'?

Too bad he can't ta... Pardon, he can(!) take a short trip to the past, to USSR.
I present you -> BELORUSSIA!

We even have a platform by the border where tourists too afraid to venture in that country can watch it from above. :rolleyes: :D

Look. IF you cannot manage this hard faced
meritocratic dog eat dog--steppin over the homeless in the stgreets--culture. If you bereak down, or whatever. know what happens? you are called 'mentally ill'

the very SAMe accusation dissenters were lablelled with in Communist Russia

Don't understand your problem with my text.

from slashdot

"This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't."
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/01/31/1930259.shtml?tid=146

Dear Neildo,
YOU WROTE: Well $400 a week isn't too bad. That's around $10 an hour after taxes. Yeah, it's not super wonderful, but that's what most jobs pay anyways.

====================
Who are you talking about that get's paid $400? All the seasonal farm slaves I know get paid scrap. Most get paid scrap commission.

Even if they are paid $400, is that a good deal?
Which school of though are you coming from?

Survival of the Fittest: We should give athlete/entertainer stars all of the money/acclaim because they worked hard to get where they are. Their supply is low, and therefore, deserve higher pay. Their function in society is to bring us a false sense of pleasure by distracting us from the stresses of our meaningless lives.

Responsibility of the Fittest: We give laborers/farmers all of the money/acclaim because their jobs are harsher, more dangerous, and unappealing. Furthermore, their job serves a very important function in preserving and maintaining our lives and environment.
====================


YOU WROTE: "Actually waiters and bartenders get paid so low because of the money they make it tips. Some places offer a nice hourly wage but you have to share the tips with the company, or you get paid below minimum wage but you get to keep all your tips. Keeping the tips is more profitable. Certain jobs like that is where it's better to have a job that offers more hours per day than dollars per hour as you'll make more money that way."

====================
Actually, absolutely

WRONG!!:
Here's the real reason again why waiters get paid below minimum wage:


Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.

====================


YOU WROTE: "Yeah right, the Patriot Act does nothing of the sort. It helps our country!"

====================
How does a complete joke help anybody in any way?
Does the the "patriot" act have any other basis than to filter out those who are not "patriots"?
Were not the founding fathers' intentions to create a country where people can be free from being forced into a particular belief?
Were not these intentions rooted in their desperate experience with the monarchy?
Will forcing others to be more patriotic make anybody with any intelligence admire such a country that imposes people to be patriotic?

Dear Karmashock,
YOU WROTE: "those are jobs that they're taking from kids of all people. There was a time not long ago when kids mowed the lawn and served you burgers... So I don't see why they can't do it again... and if anything it's better for kids to start out with humble jobs like that."

====================
You are saying that American kids are losing jobs to immigrants that live in America.
Is that not the way capitalism works? The job goes to the person that will do it for the least correct?

What jobs are they losing? Mowing lawns and serving burgers?
Does it cause America such distress if there is nobody to mow your lawn or serve you a burger?
What if there is somebody to do it, and that somebody is an immigrant?
If the kid cannot compete or is less fit, than the kid does not get the lawn mowing job. The kid must find something else. Possibly something more difficult with less payy. That's how survival of the fittest works. That's how capitalism works.
Now that all these immigrants are taking all the not-so-great jobs because they have proven themselves more fit to do so, the kids must take worse-than-not-so-great jobs.
Unless of course you believe the immigrants have taken those both forms of jobs, and the kid that is less fit is stuck with no job.
I cannot conceive how that is possible.

As I said before:


In my city alone, I see streets that need to be cleaned roads that need to be constructed and repaired to accomodate all the traffic. I see nothing but jobs. I see sick people that need to be treated, and children that need to be educated. Those are just a few examples.

In order to fix all these problems, somebody must do the 'JOB'. Somebody needs to clean the environment, fix the roads, treat the sick, teach the kids, and the list goes on. Do we have enough people doing these jobs? NO! Why? Because we are too busy doing other jobs. Selling useless products door to door, making movies, developing video games, manufacturing more cars, and the list goes on.

After all, why address the needs of treating the sick when there are more important needs like developing better vidoe games?

"The act is necessary since we're at war."
====================


You probably believe the war is necessary too correct?
You beleive we are at war because we the most powerful country on the planet are victims of terorrism, and that the fact that we are at war is not because we are the terrorists correct?

As for America being a police state, there are different degrees of being a police state. America may not be fully there yet, but it is leaning down that path. Away from the ideals and freedoms of it's forefathers', and towards what we originally fought to free ourselves from.

America no longer teaches these ideals. America now teaches us how to be collectively organized in a mob mentallity.
If a proverbial Rosa Parks were to sit in the front of a proverbial bus today, the consequences would not be the same.

In those day, she broke a racist law that claimed only a particular race can sit at the front of the bus. This incident sparked a movement that changed laws. Laws that discriminate based on race were replaced with laws that prohibit discrimination.

If we break unjust laws today, I fear that without a great leader such as Dr. MLK jr. (who was arrested himself a number of times), we would not be able to continue the momentum of positive change, and revert back to the previous conditioning.

d__am trying to understand the labyrinthe of your mind.....

you already have heard me speak of brown people of another religion being taken OFf the streets, and incarcerated for no reason but some vague suspicion, and tortued, not being allowed ANy legal help....right?................THEN you come with 'we do not live in a police state'.....WHO is 'we'?
Puzzle no longer, I am saying that we are not a police state because we still have very powerful rights... civil rights and civil liberties are both strong.

The 'brown people' are, as far as I've seen, not even citizens and therefore not afforded the same level of protection. Furthermore, we have had instances in our past where such things were common to a specific group of people in the society. At no point was this considered a police state when that happened.

At worst, you can say we are biased against some races or ethnic groups, but that doesn't make us a police state. Furthermore, just cause can be shown in these instances... at least typically.


I'm not saying I'm proud of this stuff... but we are at war.

Cool Skill:

You claim that people who discuss being oppressed and taken advantage of by large companies are upset because deep down inside they are greedy capitalists.

Why is it necessary to be a greedy capitalist to acknowledge the fact that you are being oppressed and constantly victimized by those who should be serving you?
I'm pointing out those that are, yet claim aren't.

Like you, stupid.
You are just as 'greedy' and 'selfish' as the 'capitalist pig' you love to despise.
Difference being you on the bench playing victim while they are out there living the life you'd love having if you had the same skill at getting it.

I notice most of the complaints about America come from people who don't even live in the United States. That would lead me to believe that you have no idea at all regarding the oppresion that exists under our government's rule. It is terrible beyond what the imagination can render. We are forced to choose our own jobs, and make our own choices about where to live and how to live and what opinions to express. Sometimes I wish I could be back in the USSR, living with all that freedom that no one has here in America, land of the oppressed. :m:

Beyond that they don't understand our culture. Most view us through the prism of old european powers, which is not valid. We don't think like that. We are not guided by the same forces.

The problem maybe is that nobody else really thinks like that, but you (americans). :p

If that were the case, then the war would not have been sold to play to those beliefs.

It was, because we do.

What beliefs? The misinformation that there are wmd's in Iraq and that big bad Hussein wants to nuke Israel and can do that in 48 hours?

p.s. I still don't see the reasons why the USA can have nukes, but other counties can't.
They too have the right to be able to potentially defend from oppression. Oh, right.. it is bad to the ocupants.
Not that I really care for Iraq much, but now it seems that the USA can proclaim any country as eeeeeevil and ocupy it. I get some historical reminder/resemblance twitches from the USSR in 1940s

Universal freedom and individual prosperity.

As to us calling nations evil. Support a nation that we’ve given that distinction.

I’ll give you a list of countries we’ve called evil in the last 100 years.

Nazi Germany
Imperial Japan
The USSR
-Basically any communist state
Iran
N. Korea
Saddam’s Iraq
And the Taliban’s Afghanistan


See something in there that you like? The US ALWAYS had a notion of freeing Iraq in its campaign there. If you understood the ideology driving my nation at this point, then this would be obvious to you.


So my point is this…
1. We truly believe what we’re saying.
2. We’re not just attacking random targets. If you’re not a tyranny, then you have nothing to worry about. If you are a tyranny, then only your government needs to worry about it.

in response to #2,

how can we not be worried about it when the only thing keeping us from near total anarchy is being destroyed, its like telling people not to worry about the psycopath with a gun down the street. and even if you military does offer some protection during its reign it will rob you of your resources to rebuild and leave you to starve until they haev completed their objectives and let you go home

Besides ~ 10 000 civilians in Iraq campaign alone have been killed. Friendly fire my ass.
How can you say that only the government has to worry, if it's the civilians that suffer most, without a guilt.

Thos in this thread, etc who imagine America to be some land of 'FREEDOM' and lovingly wanting to spread this..'FREEDOM" all over the world, i urge you to get yer heads outta your arses and read this...i DARe you. comments would be appreciated, but read it with an openmind

The New American Century - Arundhati Roy
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040209&=roy

here's an address that will hopefully work:
'The New American Century'-Arundhati Roy
www.commondreams.org/views04/0122-14.htm

Besides ~ 10 000 civilians in Iraq campaign alone have been killed. Friendly fire my ass.
How can you say that only the government has to worry, if it's the civilians that suffer most, without a guilt.
Actually, that number includes enemy soldiers and terrorists. The BBC has already appologized for saying that was just civilians.

Furthermore, they get a free country, which only the Americans and the Iraqi people seem to value.

Oh well.

When it is free, then I'll agree with you.
Now it is an ocupied territory of anarchy.
At least there was order and no terrorists when Hussein was at power.
Yes, you had no political freedoms, but at least you could feel safe if were loyal to the government.

But pardon me, It seems I've offtopicked from the thread title. Besides I don't live in Iraq, nor do I really care about it, just don't like international rights ignored.
I shut up.

duendy, I think that your arguement might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't told us about your LSD usage, which I'm pretty sure would distort your view of the world. :m:

Besides, what do you propose we do instead? No gov't abuses so that citizens can live in rosy warm sleezy mush? Not fun.

Wow, just wow. And here I thought we were liberating Iraq from government abuses now it's okay to do?


Ah so you admit there is political freedom here. Good good. Note that we are a police state by choice. Majority voted for Bush; says enough.

I don't really call practically a 50/50 split vote to be a majority. Let's go ahead and let the 2nd rate red countries that voted for Bush go ahead and live in their police state while all the blue states like California, the Northeast, and other more rational states that ironically are the actual states to be affected and threatened by the whole "war on terror", not live in a police state. Funny how the red states are the ones to tell the affected states how to live. And here I thought those people in red states were hardcore tough people yet they're the wimps succumbing to needing this place a police state while the blue states that are targets for terrorism stand up and say hell no, we can basically take care of ourselves.


It is SO VERy easy to not let it bother you that some people with brown skin are carted off and encaged without any LEGAL justification. and then TORTURED

what kind of people have you become that now you take this in your stride?...and didn't someone yawn?....would you want it to happen to YOU? really think about thiswould you want it to happen to your son? your friend? your dad?

so WHy are you accepting it?

for what. FREEDOM? for who?

Man, I wish it was the Russians that were the ones that blew up the WTC so that white people would be targetted so they can feel the oppression the other races must feel. Standing by and not caring about it happening is just sickening.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then
they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me." -- Pastor Niemoller


Who are you talking about that get's paid $400? All the seasonal farm slaves I know get paid scrap. Most get paid scrap commission.

The union in my area thanks to Cesar Chavez. Sure, of course there’s gonna be those that hire illegals and pay them crap wages, but that applies to everywhere with any job, but every job isn’t limited to just illegal immigrants.


Even if they are paid $400, is that a good deal?
Which school of though are you coming from?

$400 a week for doing a job that requires little skill? I’d say that’s good. $400 a week is $10 an hour and here you’re complaining about people that make minimum wage, and you say $10 an hour isn’t good enough? Well I agree $10 an hour is pretty shitty especially where I live. That can barely pay for a one bedroom apartment, but it’s better than most non-skill jobs. $10 an hour should be minimum wage. The school of thought I’m coming from is seeing what most jobs, not careers pay, and $10 is the average. So a field worker making average pay is no way bad. You also say:


We give laborers/farmers all of the money/acclaim because their jobs are harsher, more dangerous, and unappealing. Furthermore, their job serves a very important function in preserving and maintaining our lives and environment.

Their job is more important in functioning, preserving, and maintaining our lives and environment? That applies to every job. Every job serves it’s purpose. Heck, I don’t feel doctors should be making as much money as they do, but they do due to them being somewhat rare. A doctor’s job is no more important than a job most would roll their eyes at. It’s like those elite troops in the military that laugh at someone with the job of a cook or supply depot person. Heck, without those jobs, those troops wouldn’t function. Unfortunately only certain people get the glory.

Err, but I’m confused how you say we give all the money and acclaim to them when you’re complaining about the lack of money they receive? I dunno, maybe that’s someone elses response you were quoting. Sometimes it’s hard to read the way some people quote stuff.


Here's the real reason again why waiters get paid below minimum wage:

Waiters and bartenders are paid what they do due to the perk of tips. It’s basically a job that relies on comission. Not many car salesman get paid a real wage as they get paid off comission. Sell a car and you get a nice chunk of it, and that’s your income. To pay a car salesman , waiter, or bartender a high hourly wage while allowing them tips is foolish. And hey, it’s also beneficial for the customers because due to that system, the place is allowed to keep the cost of food and drink lower than it normally would be. Go to an elite establishment that pays their employees well and you most likely wouldn’t be able to afford their services. But hey, people have no real problem with it. They argue about the morals but LOVE it. We complain about sweatshops but we have no problem when prices drop real low for us to go on addictive spending sprees at Wal-Mart.

Hourly wages just aren’t simple cut and dry and you can’t base one’s pay off just that. There are many factors involved that can make a person that has absolutely no hourly wage to make more than one who makes a high hourly wage. I doubt car salesmen that make 3-5k a month have no complaints about not being paid by the hour, the same with bartenders and waiters working at good establishments.


YOU WROTE: "Yeah right, the Patriot Act does nothing of the sort. It helps our country!"

====================
How does a complete joke help anybody in any way?

It’s not a complete joke, it’s called sarcasm. What I wrote is what many people actually feel about the Patriot Act yet they have blinders on. They feel as if the Patriot Act is a GOOD thing which is just absurd. You don’t think that power corrupts?


Does the the "patriot" act have any other basis than to filter out those who are not "patriots"?

Unfortunately those making the rules put a false definition as to what a patriot is. A patriot loves their country. It’s a nationalist that loves their government. Those making the rules of what a patriot is tries to make it one who loves their government. The Patriot Act targets those that disagree with the government, something a patriot has the full right to. THAT is what America was founded on. THAT is the reason why we have the right to bear arms in the first place, not to protect ourselves from other countries, but from the government itself. The government tries to have as much power as possible, no different than the Kings and Queens we fled from when creating this country.


duendy, I think that your arguement might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't told us about your LSD usage, which I'm pretty sure would distort your view of the world.

Ah, someone that believes the drug propoganda. You’re only 16, once you’re outta school you’ll finally be able to have independent thought and learn things for yourself and be able to separate truth from bullshit.

Oh yeah, about the whole “police state” discussion, just so ya people know, Hollywood is now video enforced like London. Woohoo! I wonder when all the cameras and photo enforcement in my area will get upgraded.

- N

Dear gendanken,
YOU WROTE: "I'm pointing out those that are, yet claim aren't."
====================
ok
====================




Dear Neildo.
YOU WROTE: "but it’s better than most non-skill jobs. $10 an hour should be minimum wage."

====================
$10/hr should be minimum wage for who?


If a person is provided with food, shelterm, and a high education, the person would not do displeasureable jobs for little pay. Unfortunately these displeasurable jobs are a necessity to city function. Therefore, we would have no choice to pay the person really high in order to get him to do this displeasurable work. Since there is a set amount of funds, we have no choice but to divert money from antimobilization jobs that are pleasurable in order to pay the person to the necessity jobs that are displeasurable.



I asked you which school of thought you were coming from.
A. Survival of the Fittest: School of thought that beleives people should get paid based on supply/demand. Or how you tend to put it, based on skill level.

B. Responsibility of the Fittest: School of thought that believes people should be paid based on the importance and displeasure of a job.




This is what Survival of the Fittest believes: we give athlete/entertainer stars all of the money/acclaim because they worked hard to get where they are. Their supply is low, and therefore, deserve higher pay. Their function in society is to bring us a false sense of pleasure by distracting us from the stresses of our meaningless lives.


This is what Responsibility of the Fittest believes: We give laborers/farmers all of the money/acclaim because their jobs are harsher, more dangerous, and unappealing. Furthermore, their job serves a very important function in preserving and maintaining our lives and environment.
It doesn't matter what your skill level is, if you have a job that is easy and serves an antimobilization purpose, you should get the least pay. There is no minimum wage.
If your job plays an important function, and is displeasurable (ie garbage laborer), you should get the most acclaim/pay.


Put it this way: Do you believe that everybody no matter who you are in America deserves to be highly educated? Do you believe that eveybody in America deserves food/shelter/health care? Do you believe that unless you have a high level of education, you should not be permited to decent work? Do you believe that if all those who were highly educated enough to be eligible to work would take a displeasurable job for the money that we are currently paying the uneducated to do? Do you believe that we would be able to get away with paying them crap to do these necessary crap jobs? Do you believe that making sure everybody is highly educated before allowing them to work prevents society from using uneducated individuals to do the dirty work for minimum wage?
If you believe that people's pay should be based mainly on the displeasure of the job regardless of skill level


or

Do you believe that workers should get paid based on their skill level. Do you believe that the people with the best skill level (the fittest) should get paid more because their skill is higher in demand than those with no skill (the unfit)? Do you believe we it is ok that we can get away with paying the no-skill(unfit) person crap to do all the necessary/crap labor? Do you believe that if only highly educated (high skill) people were allowed to work, they would take these jobs for that little money? Do you believe that it is better not to provide people with food/shelter/high education in order to make people take these jobs for little pay?
====================




YOU WROTE: "Err, but I’m confused how you say we give all the money and acclaim to them when you’re complaining about the lack of money they receive?"

====================
Obviously if they are not getting paid properly for their job, why wouldn't I want to them to get paid the highest?
====================




YOU WROTE: "Waiters and bartenders are paid what they do due to the perk of tips."
====================
WRONG!!:
Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.
====================

When it is free, then I'll agree with you.
Now it is an ocupied territory of anarchy.
At least there was order and no terrorists when Hussein was at power.
Yes, you had no political freedoms, but at least you could feel safe if were loyal to the government.
You value freedom very lightly...

Anyway, we're trying to get Iraq self-sufficient as quickly as possible. So you'll likely see our sincerity soon enough. :)


But pardon me, It seems I've offtopicked from the thread title. Besides I don't live in Iraq, nor do I really care about it, just don't like international rights ignored.
I shut up.
First, this thread is about America and American morality is significant in my posts.
Second, international rights are meaningless. There are international treaties which do mean a great deal. The Geneva Convention for instance means a great deal to us. However, the UN does not have rights or powers beyond its member nations. It is a power no greater then the sum of its parts. The UN has the potential to be more, but it currently is undeserving of that power.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

You value freedom very lightly...
When you can't be sure that your children return alive from school, your dad is not kidnapped and your workplace on return isn't robbed from all equipment, political freedom suddenly seems not so important.

Anyway, we're trying to get Iraq self-sufficient as quickly as possible. So you'll likely see our sincerity soon enough.
It was self sufficient before. By international rights I ment not so much the UN (which I agree is laughable at its' current state), but I ment the right of every country to be a sovereign power and be internationally acknowledged so.

You say Hussein was evil, but for the people of Iraq the situation is better or worse now? It's terror and anarchy mixed up with ocupation military forces. Hardly a good place to have a peaceful retirement. What was so worse about Hussein?
Killed his own people? After the Abu Ghaibr (sp) photos we know that americans are no better than torturers employed by Hussein and they even humiliate their prisoners more.

I think the people of Iraq have all the rights now to kill every enemy of state in sight, those being terrorists, bandits and members of ocupation forces.

When you can't be sure that your children return alive from school, your dad is not kidnapped and your workplace on return isn't robbed from all equipment, political freedom suddenly seems not so important.
Then you cannot remain free. Your life will be threatened and you will return to tyranny.

You must be willing to die for it. Then you are of no value to the tyrants and they will prey upon someone else.


It was self sufficient before.
UNDER TYRANNY!

It will be free and prosperous in Freedom.


By international rights I ment not so much the UN (which I agree is laughable at its' current state), but I ment the right of every country to be a sovereign power and be internationally acknowledged so.
No such right has ever existed. You maintain that with force and power.

In iraq's case, they had lost that right after teh first Iraq war. Why do you think we had planes flying over their territory there after?

He could have gotten it back, but he decided to play games. That gave us an excuse to do what we wanted to do in the first place... which is take him out completely.


You say Hussein was evil, but for the people of Iraq the situation is better or worse now? It's terror and anarchy mixed up with ocupation military forces. Hardly a good place to have a peaceful retirement. What was so worse about Hussein?

Better... we've polled them. They're glad.

Killed his own people? After the Abu Ghaibr (sp) photos we know that americans are no better than torturers employed by Hussein and they even humiliate their prisoners more.
Bullshit, we put underwear on a few people heads, saddam electrocuted, whipped, flayed (means skinned), etc.

We are NOTHING alike.


I think the people of Iraq have all the rights now to kill every enemy of state in sight, those being terrorists, bandits and members of ocupation forces.
You’re a moral relativist then.

You'd have thought America to be morally equal to Nazi Germany in WWII.

Morality goes against your arguments, so you've taken it out of the argument. It renders your positions specious by their very nature.

Oh well.

Bullshit, we put underwear on a few people heads, saddam electrocuted, whipped, flayed (means skinned), etc.
We are NOTHING alike.
Not for a muslin! And it was not just underwear and we all know it and have seen it.

Better... we've polled them. They're glad.
Of course, glad, same was told when USSR ocupied Latvia in 1940, beautiful campagins showing people with flowers greeting them.

Then you cannot remain free. Your life will be threatened and you will return to tyranny.
Of course that's the choice - tyranny or something other, but I think that should have been the right of the people of Iraq to choose, not some foreign power.

It will be free and prosperous in Freedom.
Even if they democratically elect a constitutional comitee (sp) which establishes that Iraq is a theocratic state with Islam as the main source of law?

You’re a moral relativist then.
Not really, I'm amoral. They're not a part of my value system.

You'd have thought America to be morally equal to Nazi Germany in WWII.
If it invades Iran.


p.s. Why didn't you get rid of Hussein in the first war? I've never understood/researched that. Seems a bit dumb of a choice (from the USA point of view)

Not for a muslin! And it was not just underwear and we all know it and have seen it.
for a human being.

To my knowledge, we haven't hurt them.

Furthermore, Saddam didn't give a damn about their religion. He didn't do this sort of thing because direct torture was mroe effective.

Teh people we are messing with have NO protection under the Geneva convention. Read it.


Of course, glad, same was told when USSR ocupied Latvia in 1940, beautiful campagins showing people with flowers greeting them.
The difference is that these are independent surveys by ANYONE that wants to come in and do it. The soviets didn't even bother to poll people, they just made some stupid videos. independent academics are showing their own polls that show this fact.


Of course that's the choice - tyranny or something other, but I think that should have been the right of the people of Iraq to choose, not some foreign power.
The Iraqis do have that choice. IT will be their government. If they want to go back to tyranny, then they just have to vote it back into power.

We're happy to take that risk, because we know they won't do it. They'd have to be stupid.


Even if they democratically elect a constitutional comitee (sp) which establishes that Iraq is a theocratic state with Islam as the main source of law?
Likely not in that case, but we don't see that as likely. Polls show that they would prefer a secular society. A theocratic society would definitely oppress some segments of the population. A secular one would be more predictable and safer.


Not really, I'm amoral. They're not a part of my value system.
Moral relativists are amoral.


If it invades Iran.
no, regardless. We killed millions in WWII... and the nazi killed millions in WWII.

Therefore the US is only better then Nazi Germany in WWII in that it killed slightly more people.

At least according to moral relativism, which is bunk.


p.s. Why didn't you get rid of Hussein in the first war? I've never understood/researched that. Seems a bit dumb of a choice (from the USA point of view)
Because he's a tyrannical despot.

Research it... Americans were very pissed that Bush Sr. didn't kick him out. He lost the election to Clinton largely because of that.

I am wondering, for all the ones who who LOOOVe American, did you by chance read that link i gave you titled The New American Century, by Arundhati Roy? Haven't heard a murmur about it........Are you in DENIAL then that you don't even mention it?
Fact is, i keep hearing the kettle calling the pot black. You American patriots keep callin OTHERS tyrants whilst refusing to accept that you TOO have a tyrant, namley Bushjunior who is now carrying out imperialism on the world, in his skewed vision of delivering everyone up to Jeeeezuus Christ

You harp on about America being the land of the free. For WHO exactly. for white middle class Americans?....Many are not as 'fortunate' as you. for example, Many Native americns and poor people, mostly non-white have to live near or on top of the toxic shit created by the technology you so rely on. Are THEy free to live THERE?

You have the huge proportion of people-again mostly non-white--who are imprisoned in your jails for drugs--victims of your war on [SOME] drugs. Whilst there they have to produce goods for a growing contingent of corporattions for jack shit. ie., legalized slave labour

your health care is crap too isn't it. And yet the poor are more prone to disease and crap food because of the circumstances of their lives they have to lead

As i have said, your whole idea of freedom is freedom to 'get to the top' and to guzzle and gobble as much as you can cause that is freedom. But it is fukin everything up. Your 'freedoms' is fukin up for the rest of the world where huge portions of people are living in dire poverty due to your 'free market' system

it is NOT just you and your self-interests you know. you share a planet with many others, including other species. If there is anything we should understand is our interrelationship with ALL the world, and getting this insight start making changes....FAST!

regarding the Iraqi war. It was NOTHING to do with the removal of a despot. And everything to do with establishing American interests there. To do that they have murdered many thousands of children. women, and men, and made the whole environment toxic. happy votin hey? wonder if they'll copy the American style of voting. you know the one where they con the people?......land of the free my arse

I am wondering, for all the ones who who LOOOVe American, did you by chance read that link i gave you titled The New American Century, by Arundhati Roy? Haven't heard a murmur about it........Are you in DENIAL then that you don't even mention it?
I didn’t bother to read it… I’m not in denial, I expect you to make your own case and then offer something else as proof. Not just cite a opinion peace and leave it at that.

Fact is, i keep hearing the kettle calling the pot black. You American patriots keep callin OTHERS tyrants whilst refusing to accept that you TOO have a tyrant, namley Bushjunior who is now carrying out imperialism on the world, in his skewed vision of delivering everyone up to Jeeeezuus Christ
We have no agenda to spread any religion… at least not as a nation. Private groups spread many religions including Islam.


You harp on about America being the land of the free. For WHO exactly. for white middle class Americans?....Many are not as 'fortunate' as you. for example, Many Native americns and poor people, mostly non-white have to live near or on top of the toxic shit created by the technology you so rely on. Are THEy free to live THERE?
Citizens are equal before the law.


You have the huge proportion of people-again mostly non-white--who are imprisoned in your jails for drugs--victims of your war on [SOME] drugs. Whilst there they have to produce goods for a growing contingent of corporattions for jack shit. ie., legalized slave labour
mostly because the drug trade comes up from South America. South Americans are generally non-white. If the trade were coming out of Canada, then there would be a different situation.


your health care is crap too isn't it. And yet the poor are more prone to disease and crap food because of the circumstances of their lives they have to lead
We are not a socialist state. There is no guarantee of anything but freedom and the ability to “pursue” happiness.

That said, if you can afford it, ours is the best in the world.


As i have said, your whole idea of freedom is freedom to 'get to the top' and to guzzle and gobble as much as you can cause that is freedom. But it is fukin everything up. Your 'freedoms' is fukin up for the rest of the world where huge portions of people are living in dire poverty due to your 'free market' system
It is the only effective system we know of that can maintain itself on such a large scale. Communist states can’t operate unless they’re very small and other systems typically can’t get larger then a few thousand without resorting to violence to maintain order.


it is NOT just you and your self-interests you know. you share a planet with many others, including other species. If there is anything we should understand is our interrelationship with ALL the world, and getting this insight start making changes....FAST!
That’s mercantilist thinking. Static thinking.

We produce wealth… it is made. We make it and so we get the prime benefit. Get over it.


regarding the Iraqi war. It was NOTHING to do with the removal of a despot. And everything to do with establishing American interests there. To do that they have murdered many thousands of children. women, and men, and made the whole environment toxic. happy votin hey? wonder if they'll copy the American style of voting. you know the one where they con the people?......land of the free my arse
what the fuck are you even talking about? Wipe the foam off your mouth and try that again.

I didn’t bother to read it… I’m not in denial, I expect you to make your own case and then offer something else as proof. Not just cite a opinion peace and leave it at that.

d__IF you dont WANT to learn, you WON'T find out!

We have no agenda to spread any religion… at least not as a nation. Private groups spread many religions including Islam.

d__and karmashock says it so it MUSt be true. after all he like to learn doesn't he?

Citizens are equal before the law.

d__Thus spake karmashock


mostly because the drug trade comes up from South America. South Americans are generally non-white. If the trade were coming out of Canada, then there would be a different situation.

d__ahhhhhccch get REAL dude. it's not ONLy south americans incarcerated in your prison industry, there are black people, ethnics. as i siad ..'NON-whites' though whites will be included in your disgusting
fascist drug war. which you seem to be in favour of


We are not a socialist state. There is no guarantee of anything but freedom and the ability to “pursue” happiness.

d__it STINKS

That said, if you can afford it, ours is the best in the world.

d__IF you CAN afford it. you mean your mega sized telly and your SUVs and your swimming pools and wall to wall bling bling. whilst the rest get eat by the rats, and live on your toxic sludge?
enjoooooy!


It is the only effective system we know of that can maintain itself on such a large scale. Communist states can’t operate unless they’re very small and other systems typically can’t get larger then a few thousand without resorting to violence to maintain order.

d_-But hey dude. it ISN'T maintaining itself. it is one fukin big fascistic mess thaT IS CAUSING UNBELIVEABLY MISERY FOR A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE WORLD'S people, including yours who aint got no dosh, medical care, MEANING. it is VILE in other words. a complete failure. youare strutting your stuff cause you imagine communism is THe only ever alternative. that just shows your poverty of imagination. Bother capitalism and communism had a cntralized power structure.



That’s mercantilist thinking. Static thinking.
d__ie., you accuse me of this when i warn you to begin considering sutainable living. thinking of the RESt of the planet including other species. You think MY thinking is static...........words fail me

We produce wealth… it is made. We make it and so we get the prime benefit. Get over it.

d__on the backs of people you drive into the shit is how you make your 'wealth'. you dont know the MEANING Of wealth. all you know is exploitation. of going to people's lands and murdering them to further your corporate interests is what you do. you disgust me

what the fuck are you even talking about? Wipe the foam off your mouth and try that again.

well that last outburst tells it all. you will not learn about what America is doing. so why are you hear at this thread. you want me to have to quote what Arundhati, and othes with insight, says word for word? you want me to make effort for your lazy americanized media-drugged arse...........No. you have to make the effort to learn yourself. you ARe free you keep tellin us. so you are free to learn right? so LEARN!

Karmashock,
You said:

for a human being.
followed by:

Teh people we are messing with have NO protection under the Geneva convention. Read it.
Can you see your contradiction? You call Saddam on a general lack of morality, then decide that those outside of the Geneva convention don't deserve protection for being a human.

Also, your economic model for fixing Iraw is seriously flawed.
All democratic revolution occurs when the middle class grows.
Had we bought Iraqi oil, lifted our no-fly zones, eventually the people would get tired of their despot and yearn for more freedom.
Historically, that's what would have happened, had we not cockblocked the fuck out of Iraw.

d__IF you dont WANT to learn, you WON'T find out!
So you say, make your point. If I doubt it, then I’ll read it. If you can’t make a decent point on your own, then I see no reason why I should respect your thought process or judgement.


d__and karmashock says it so it MUSt be true. after all he like to learn doesn't he?
That’s a stupid and unnecessarily sarcastic statement. I can also reverse it effortlessly.
Should we all just believe YOU, because YOU say something? The US has no religious agenda. Factions within the US have religious agendas, but they’re primarily domestic. Those that go beyond our boarders are run by private citizens are represent many religions.



Citizens are equal before the law.

d__Thus spake karmashock
Thus spake you! Again, you’re trying to use sarcasm as an argument. Sarcasm is not an argument.


d__ahhhhhccch get REAL dude. it's not ONLy south americans incarcerated in your prison industry, there are black people, ethnics. as i siad ..'NON-whites' though whites will be included in your disgusting
fascist drug war. which you seem to be in favour of
What are you inferring? That we let white offenders go? Or is it that we just lock people up for being of a different ethnicity?

Neither is true. The statistics show that some sub cultures are more prone then others to certain behavior. Asians for instance are LESS prone then whites to be in jail or be convicted.

Why is that? If your reasoning were correct, then only white people would be underrepresented.

Open your eyes. “the man” is an infantile concept developed by undereducated malcontents.




We are not a socialist state. There is no guarantee of anything but freedom and the ability to “pursue” happiness.

d__it STINKS
Your opinion, people still prefer to live here as they come by the millions.



That said, if you can afford it, ours is the best in the world.

d__IF you CAN afford it. you mean your mega sized telly and your SUVs and your swimming pools and wall to wall bling bling. whilst the rest get eat by the rats, and live on your toxic sludge?
enjoooooy!
You’re exaggerating things to the point where they don’t even make sense anymore.



[quote]It is the only effective system we know of that can maintain itself on such a large scale. Communist states can’t operate unless they’re very small and other systems typically can’t get larger then a few thousand without resorting to violence to maintain order.

d_-But hey dude. it ISN'T maintaining itself. it is one fukin big fascistic mess thaT IS CAUSING UNBELIVEABLY MISERY FOR A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE WORLD'S people, including yours who aint got no dosh, medical care, MEANING. it is VILE in other words. a complete failure. youare strutting your stuff cause you imagine communism is THe only ever alternative. that just shows your poverty of imagination. Bother capitalism and communism had a cntralized power structure.
Capitalism does NOT have a centralized system…. This is so obvious that I’m compelled to insult you… *resists*. Read up a little bit about how capitalism works. It is the ONLY effective decentralized economic system we know of. Anarchy might be something you could list, but I would argue that it isn’t effective.



That’s mercantilist thinking. Static thinking.
d__ie., you accuse me of this when i warn you to begin considering sutainable living. thinking of the RESt of the planet including other species. You think MY thinking is static...........words fail me
No, I accuse you of thinking in finite terms.



We produce wealth… it is made. We make it and so we get the prime benefit. Get over it.

d__on the backs of people you drive into the shit is how you make your 'wealth'. you dont know the MEANING Of wealth. all you know is exploitation. of going to people's lands and murdering them to further your corporate interests is what you do. you disgust me
The average American makes about 37,000 dollars a year. Are you saying that he’s an exploiter? You sound ridiculous. What do you have to add to any rational discussion? You’re quite literally mad. Medication, therapy, and a sponsor…

I don’t know what else to tell you.

well that last outburst tells it all. you will not learn about what America is doing. so why are you hear at this thread. you want me to have to quote what Arundhati, and othes with insight, says word for word? you want me to make effort for your lazy americanized media-drugged arse...........No. you have to make the effort to learn yourself. you ARe free you keep tellin us. so you are free to learn right? so LEARN!
If you’ll just state your opinions in the open like a normal human being, then I’ll read and respond. But don’t expect me to read through some huge article that might be from a biased source every single time.

Give me a key point from it or take it for granted that most, and I, will not read it. There is no reason why I should have to listen to your unintelligible abuse. Either have a point and treat others with respect or don't expect to be respected in return.
===================================

Karmashock,
Can you see your contradiction? You call Saddam on a general lack of morality, then decide that those outside of the Geneva convention don't deserve protection for being a human.
Putting underwear on a person’s head or having them simulate oral sex is not inhumane.

Furthermore, these people have the same legal status as SPIES under the Convention. They have literally no rights whatsoever.

If they want rights, all they have to do is start wearing uniforms so they can’t infiltrate or stop fighting. If you wear civilian clothing and fight, then you’re an enemy combatent.

If these were just civilians that we were fighting, then you’d have a point. However, these are ex-Saddam military and foreign terrorists. So they should wear uniforms. If they did, then they’d have full POW protection.

It’s their choice. If you attack us in civilian cloths, then you’re getting underwear put on your head.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/osama-underwear.jpg


Also, your economic model for fixing Iraw is seriously flawed.
All democratic revolution occurs when the middle class grows.
Had we bought Iraqi oil, lifted our no-fly zones, eventually the people would get tired of their despot and yearn for more freedom.
Why would the oil money go to the people? It never did in the past.

Historically, that's what would have happened, had we not cockblocked the fuck out of Iraw.
Historically, he could have just repressed them so much that they wouldn’t have risen ever.

If you never let up, then the people don’t rise up.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Karmashock,

Historically, he could have just repressed them so much that they wouldn’t have risen ever.

If you never let up, then the people don’t rise up.
Impossible.
Trickle-down effect. Saddam would need people to work his oil fields, schools to train engineers, workers to build schools.

So you're saying we get to torture prisoners because they don't paint stripes on themselves and say "shoot me?" Humans only get to be treated humanely when they follow our rules, correct?

Personally, I think we should carpet bomb Iraq into submission. Who would stop us? But we're too big of pansies to do it, and instead just torture Muslims. I guess it's the next best thing.

Whatever.

Karmashock,

Impossible.
Trickle-down effect. Saddam would need people to work his oil fields, schools to train engineers, workers to build schools.
Sunnis only.


So you're saying we get to torture prisoners because they don't paint stripes on themselves and say "shoot me?" Humans only get to be treated humanely when they follow our rules, correct?
We're NOT HURTING THEM! We're just messing with them. Furthermore, uniforms are required. If you don't wear them, then the treaties don't apply.


If they want rights, then they have to have them... or stop fighting.

Those are the rules.


Personally, I think we should carpet bomb Iraq into submission. Who would stop us? But we're too big of pansies to do it, and instead just torture Muslims. I guess it's the next best thing.
That was as flippant as it was unfair. We're doing our best to spare innocents... we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars to that effect. Not one American would have died in this war if we didn't care about getting close enough to just kill the enemy.


Every American life is shed for the lives of others. If we just wanted to kill, then we could have done that from high altitude bombing.


Whatever.
Not whatever, I care, we all care. Understand the situation. The people we're messing with aren't friendly. They're setting up road bombs and shooting innocent Iraqis ON PURPOSE! So I'm sure as shit not going to feel sorry for their feelings when I put underwear on their heads.

i notice you call me crazy and suggest i go on medication karmashock.....of dearr, if you only knew......
ANYone in communism who didn't agree with the system was called 'mentally ill'. many werey locked in 'mental institutions'....JUSt like the grand ole usa etc

but you wont get it karmshock ther's no point in sracasm, or presenting you with more in-depth evidence --you are too mediarized. the media and your political(?) education has done ya

now you are just a brick wall spoutin off. no humanity have you. you cant even see the humiliation of other people anything to be upset about

like i said. you disgust me

The fact that you both refuse to explain yourself and consider your silly points to be self evident only makes you seem pathetic.

Either advance a case or expect me to ignore your silly comments. You're not as wise or informed as you seem to believe.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

Why do people around the world want so baddly to come to America? I used to be on of them, and like them i believed that the streets here were made out of gold. i was proved wrong. but still why do people come here both legally and illegally?
Because they think the streets are made out of gold. I wonder why they think that..... :rolleyes:

YOU WROTE: "Waiters and bartenders are paid what they do [below minimum wage] due to the perk of tips."
====================
WRONG!!:
Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.

Oy, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because I'm going to call you out on it again and say you're wrong. Resturants pay their waiters and bartenders less than minimum wage so they can make a profit and stay alive? If that were the case, resturant owners WOULD pay their waiters and bartenders normal pay because of the amount of money made in tips. A waiter or bartender can make a lot more money through tips than if they had a normal hourly wage so if the resturant wants to make the most money, they would keep the tips for themselves rather than letting the waiters and bartenders. Some establishments do work that way where they keep the tips and give the workers a small cut of it because it's more profitable for them, while paying them a normal hourly wage.

To put it simply, most employers want to pay their workers a "fair" wage, but not go overboard. By lowering one's pay and supplimenting it with tips, it balances out to become a normal wage. If one pays a person a normal wage with the added perks of tips, that person then winds up making too much money for the skill of their job. If there were no such thing as tips in the resturant business, those employees would be paid a normal wage and not below minimum wage.

As to the rest of your long list of questions before that, I like those questions and I would normally answer them but that's a side of the argument that I'm not talking about or care to discuss as they're mainly moral questions and that'll turn into a huge long discussion due to the complexity of the subject and the amount of questions which I don't care to get into. I just chimed correcting a few comments where it was said that field workers make horrible pay and another where under minimum wage is bad, when field workers get paid normal pay ($400 a week) and things are a bit more complex than just looking at hourly pay to see how much one makes as tips, commission, etc tend to be more profitable.


p.s. Why didn't you get rid of Hussein in the first war? I've never understood/researched that. Seems a bit dumb of a choice (from the USA point of view)

Because even Bush Sr. knew how much of a mistake invading Baghdad and having the war turn into a guerilla war would be. Funny how his son didn't. Or did he?


The difference is that these are independent surveys by ANYONE that wants to come in and do it. The soviets didn't even bother to poll people, they just made some stupid videos. independent academics are showing their own polls that show this fact.

So "our" polls of Iraq are much more accurate and what we see on TV isn't propoganda like of the Russians? I'd be curious how many polls were done in the "danger zones" where there are bounties on the heads of journalists. By only polling "safe" people, it's an inaccurate poll.


The Iraqis do have that choice. IT will be their government. If they want to go back to tyranny, then they just have to vote it back into power.

Which would mean this war was in vain. What if Iraq voted to have their old ways back, what would everyone think then? Seriously, what?


We're happy to take that risk, because we know they won't do it. They'd have to be stupid.

Not to say they will or won't vote their old ways in, but saying they'd have to be stupid is the biggest blunder ever. We tend to highly underestimate people we know little about and well, their culture is nothing like ours yet we continue to apply Western and rational thought when it comes to trying to understand them which doesn't work.


Fact is, i keep hearing the kettle calling the pot black. You American patriots keep callin OTHERS tyrants whilst refusing to accept that you TOO have a tyrant, namley Bushjunior who is now carrying out imperialism on the world, in his skewed vision of delivering everyone up to Jeeeezuus Christ

Patriots doing that? Hey now, please separate the “patriots” from the “fools”. They’re quite two different things. Fools don’t know what patriotism is.


mostly because the drug trade comes up from South America. South Americans are generally non-white. If the trade were coming out of Canada, then there would be a different situation.

Canada? Lotsa bud. Over the counter drugs too, which are trying to get banned. Go figure.. ;)

- N


Here you go Duendy:


George: This used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.

Billy: Huh. Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened, man. Hey, we can't even get into like, uh, second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel. You dig? They think we're gonna cut their throat or something, man. They're scared, man.

George: Oh, they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.

Billy: Hey man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody needs a haircut.

George: Oh no. What you represent to them is freedom.

Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.

George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

- Easy Rider
- http://www.themovieboy.com/essays_easyrider.htm

It also makes you think, do people actually want to come here? Or is it propaganda that they are feeding us to make us feel better about ourselves.

It also makes you think, do people actually want to come here? Or is it propaganda that they are feeding us to make us feel better about ourselves.

It could go either way, but due to how often we hear about it, it does make one think that it is propaganda. Nationalism to the core! Freedom this, liberty that. Yes, I love it, but please shut the hell up already. I don't wanna be brainwashed. Thanks. Heh.

- N

In Latvia I hear more people wanting to go to Ireland or the United Kingdom (those two take the absolute leader positions), or Spain. Germany too.

Turned on the TV this morning and on the news am told a BILLION childrean worldwide are living are living in poverty and suffering starvation.....a B I L L I O N

due to how markets are. thiis will mean the 'free' market pushed by western countries who have as their leader -, America

it is more than obscene all of this

if you believe in 'karma' then you probably will be smug about it imagining you are not dying of starvation caus your good...or then ther's the christian indctrination of 'God' maKES THOSE SUFFER WHO NEEDS IT

i dont believe all of that stupid belief. WHY the world is like this is cause of ignorance, apathy, greed

There is NO excuse for ANY people to be having to live in poverty. and i am not suggesting everyone havin a pool and a SUV either. but living well with shelter, food, community, a good quality of life. living sutainably with the planet

but it is all the stories people are telling themselves that does this. in the West it is the dream of success. all this shite has been manupulated by mass media spin. the meme that you can only be happy when you are buying crap you dont need...consuming. and only thinking of you and yours
All it takes is for people to wake up to what they are being manipulated with...i am not on about any Buddha etc 'awakening' but waking up to what the authoritarians are makin you jump through hoops to do

You do also realize that the number of people living in poverty worldwide has been reduced by something like 20% in the past 2 decades.

You do also realize that the number of people living in poverty worldwide has been reduced by something like 20% in the past 2 decades.

oh path...KEEP yer statistics. the POINT is is that therer shouldn't BE ANY poverty in the world
All statistics like your ones do is keep things tickin over. ie., the power-weilders 'trickle down' propaganda. it's a game. see through it. the very system KEEPs the poverty going

It also makes you think, do people actually want to come here? Or is it propaganda that they are feeding us to make us feel better about ourselves.
That is exactly what I clearly pointed out...... :rolleyes:
I suppose my "sublimal" messages are working well? :D

Hey duendy, check this out:

The Implications of High Living Standards (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=761012#post761012)

"There’s also an ethical issue behind excessive consumption. The corporations that produce the goods that we buy pay very small wages to the people that manufacture their products. In fact, people in China, for example, are paid barely enough to survive. With small wages, the corporations are able to keep the prices lower for us. This is the politics of poverty exportation. We have high paid jobs in our developed countries that are in charge of managing everything. In the developing countries, with low labour costs, they manufacture those products and receive almost nothing. Poor Chinese people and people from other developing countries pay a very high price. Many starve. Many can barely feed their families. All that so that we can have a talking beer can that sings the Canadian hymn? Maybe we need to review our priorities.

The exportation of poverty and exploitation of work doesn’t stop here. There is about one billion people in the planet that don’t even have clean water to drink. Millions don’t have anything to eat. Billions of people live in very poor conditions, just enough not to be considered “below the line of poverty”. While all those people are suffering, a selected few, who just happened to be born in the right place, enjoys the pleasures of living with their little toys. While those few people work little and receive a lot, most people seem to work a lot with slave wages. Is that how valuable consumerism is? Do people even know that when they buy something from a multinational corporation they are actually enslaving innocent people? How many people die so that we can buy our big plasma TV?"

Dear Neildo,

YOUR WROTE “Resturants pay their waiters and bartenders less than minimum wage so they can make a profit and stay alive? If that were the case, resturant owners WOULD pay their waiters and bartenders normal pay because of the amount of money made in tips.”
====================
Are you assuming in this case that the customer is tipping the restaurant rather than the waiter?
Is it the customer’s decision who keeps the tip or the restaurant’s?
Assuming the customer is tipping the waiter and not the restaurant (or tipping nobody at all): how will they stay alive if they are paying waiters minimum wage instead of below minimum?
Will there still be demand for restaurants if they hike up their food prices by 15%-20%?
Even if they do so, will the restaurants still be able to make profit


YOU WROTE” if the resturant wants to make the most money, they would keep the tips for themselves rather than letting the waiters and bartenders.”
====================
Are you presuming that restaurants do not want to make the most money?
Are you saying that because restaurants do not keep tips for themselves, they do not want to make the most money?
Are you implying that if restaurants really wanted to make money, they would keep the tips, and pay their waiters at least minimum wage?


YOU WROTE: “Some establishments do work that way where they keep the tips and give the workers a small cut of it because it's more profitable for them, while paying them a normal hourly wage.”
====================
Proof?
Some restaurants I have studies pay their waiters minimum wage or higher. Not most restaurants.
Other restaurants I have studied require their staff to pool their tips, then split them up evenly.
Some restaurants I have studies charge a 15% fee as an automatic tip that goes directly to the waiter.
Some restaurants I have studied use varying combinations of these standards.
No restaurants I have studied keep any portion of tips -> Much less keep the tips and give the workers a small cut -> Much less keep the tips and give the workers a small cut while paying them a normal hourly wage.


YOU WROTE: “most employers want to pay their workers a "fair" wage”
====================
On what planet?
I was always under the impression that most business want to maximize profit and minimize expenses.
Therefore, they want to minimize the pay to workers by paying them the least amount they can legally get away with paying while at the same time maximizing profit.
Fairness is irrelevant in survival of the fittest capitalism. The business does whatever it can get away with for profit. Fair or not fair.
At least on earth.


YOU WROTE: “If there were no such thing as tips in the resturant business, those employees would be paid a normal wage and not below minimum wage.”
====================
What employees?
If there were no such thing as tips, most restaurants would not survive.
Therefore, no employees.
In order for those employees to be paid a normal wage and not below minimum wage, there has to be employees to pay.
In order for there to be employees to pay, there has to be restaurants to pay them.
How can a restaurant that does not exist because there are no tips possibly pay employees that do not exist wage and not below minimum wage?
Or do you believe that if there were no such thing as tips, most restaurants would survive?

If waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.


YOU WROTE: “If correcting a few comments where it was said that field workers make horrible pay and another where under minimum wage is bad, when field workers get paid normal pay ($400 a week)”
====================
Field workers do make horrible pay.
Under minimum wage is bad.
Field workers are not paid $400 a week.
Even if they were, for the desirability of their job, $400 a week is horrible pay.
Are you basing their on their skill level or on the desirability of their job?
Basing on skill level – allows the rich to pay the unfit the least to do the jobs.
Basing on desirability – the least desirable job is paid the most.

Are you assuming in this case that the customer is tipping the restaurant rather than the waiter?
Is it the customer’s decision who keeps the tip or the restaurant’s?
Assuming the customer is tipping the waiter and not the restaurant (or tipping nobody at all): how will they stay alive if they are paying waiters minimum wage instead of below minimum?

The customer tips the waiter. Does that mean the tip always goes to the waiter? Nope. For resturants that pay their waiters and bartenders a fair wage, most places keep a portion of the tip. For resturants that pay their waiters around minimum wage, they have the workers split the tips. For resturants that pay their workers below minimum wage, they let them keep the whole tip.

And workers can stay alive being paid below minimum wage because they can make more money in tips than if they were paid a fair wage. And resturants stay alive when they pay their workers a fair wage due to numerous factors such as the price they get for their goods to cook with, or the price they sell their meals for.

The resturant business is a hard one. It’s usually not because of the lack of money that comes in to pay their workers, but rather not having a resturant that stands out to grab a lot of customers. There are so many places to eat so that makes it all the more harder for customers to choose your place to eat at unless there’s something special about it.


Will there still be demand for restaurants if they hike up their food prices by 15%-20%?
Even if they do so, will the restaurants still be able to make profit

Of course. Not all resturants charge the same price for their meals yet have no problem staying in business. The price isn’t too much of a problem but rather having a nice establishment that makes people want to come to it. For poor people, price usually matters, but for most, they just want to have a good time.



Are you presuming that restaurants do not want to make the most money?
Are you saying that because restaurants do not keep tips for themselves, they do not want to make the most money?
Are you implying that if restaurants really wanted to make money, they would keep the tips, and pay their waiters at least minimum wage?

Obviously people want to make the most money as possible. However, things need to be balanced. Most jobs don’t want to have to change workers all the time due to the cost and time it takes to train them. For those that don’t care, they will do whatever possible to make the most money, but for those that care about their place and their workers, they will, yes, take a cut in the amount of money they can make so that while they still do make a nice amount of money, their workers are paid fair as well.

And yes, for places that do not keep the tips for themselves rather than letting the workers have it, they’re taking a loss there so if they were as greedy as you make them out to be, they would keep the tips for themselves since being paid below minimum wage yet being allowed to keep tips is more profitable for the worker than if they were paid a fair wage.


Proof?

Working at quite a few resturants as well as having a bunch of friends who’s family own different types of resturants.


Some restaurants I have studies pay their waiters minimum wage or higher. Not most restaurants.

I never said most do. I said some do to show you the various types of pay combinations there are.


Other restaurants I have studied require their staff to pool their tips, then split them up evenly.

Yup.


Some restaurants I have studies charge a 15% fee as an automatic tip that goes directly to the waiter.

Yup. That doesn’t mean customers still don’t give them a tip on top of that though. And depending on the resturant, the worker may be able to keep the whole tip, pool it, or give it all to the resturant due to the automatic 15%.


Some restaurants I have studied use varying combinations of these standards.

Yup.


No restaurants I have studied keep any portion of tips -> Much less keep the tips and give the workers a small cut -> Much less keep the tips and give the workers a small cut while paying them a normal hourly wage.

Ya need to check out more places then. I hope you’re not just researching resturant chains.



YOU WROTE: “most employers want to pay their workers a "fair" wage”
====================
On what planet?
I was always under the impression that most business want to maximize profit and minimize expenses.
Therefore, they want to minimize the pay to workers by paying them the least amount they can legally get away with paying while at the same time maximizing profit.
Fairness is irrelevant in survival of the fittest capitalism. The business does whatever it can get away with for profit. Fair or not fair.
At least on earth.

They do. Usually there’s an average total in mind for different types of jobs and to pay them, the resturant will use a combination of methods that is either a flat pay by them, an okay pay with slight tips mixed in, or crappy pay relying mostly on tips. By being able to tweak the combinations, one can manipulate it to come out to almost the same pay regardless. For those that get to keep the whole tip though, they wind up being able to make more than the owner knows though due to how good the worker is with people, how much they get tipped, what kinds of people dine there, and other reasons I’m sure you can think of.

And basically the way you’re talking, it sounds like you’ve only researched resturant chains. I agree those are “usually” money-grubbing places. However, regardless of their low pay or lack of benefits, a worker can still make nice money off customer’s tips. By having their staff be payed in tips, the place IS minimizing worker pay, just not being super greedy and taking a cut of the tips too. But just because the resturant pays their workers crappy, it doesn’t mean the workers get crappy pay all together (tips, etc).

For owners that do care about their workers, that’s the best place to work. Basically everyone is like family. If one’s in trouble, the owner will help out people. Heck, they may even pay for one’s schooling! You may think it’s crazy due to greedy capitalism, but not everyone does it strictly for the money even if that may be their main intent. Even by paying extra in cases such as this, the owner isn’t really taking a loss. Like I said, time and cost to train, having workers that customers get to know, having an experienced staff that speeds up everything, it all helps out in the end for the owner.



YOU WROTE: “If there were no such thing as tips in the resturant business, those employees would be paid a normal wage and not below minimum wage.”
====================
What employees?
If there were no such thing as tips, most restaurants would not survive.
Therefore, no employees.
In order for those employees to be paid a normal wage and not below minimum wage, there has to be employees to pay.
In order for there to be employees to pay, there has to be restaurants to pay them.
How can a restaurant that does not exist because there are no tips possibly pay employees that do not exist wage and not below minimum wage?
Or do you believe that if there were no such thing as tips, most restaurants would survive?

If waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.

Oh, I agree that without tips, “most” resturants wouldn’t survive. All that means is that there would be less resturants but that doesn’t mean there’d be no resturants whatsoever. Those that exist would be even better places than they are now due to the extra money they’re making due to lack of competition which also allows their workers do be better paid. Rare jobs go up price. But hey, tips exist, so we get lots of resturants so there’s no worry.




Field workers do make horrible pay.
Under minimum wage is bad.
Field workers are not paid $400 a week.
Even if they were, for the desirability of their job, $400 a week is horrible pay.
Are you basing their on their skill level or on the desirability of their job?
Basing on skill level – allows the rich to pay the unfit the least to do the jobs.
Basing on desirability – the least desirable job is paid the most.

Where are you living to get these facts from? Not EVERY field worker is some illegal immigrant that can be taken advantage of. There’s field worker unions ya know, thanks to Cesar Chavez. I live in a huge agricultural area (which is a bonus to resturants due to less costly food ingrediants which means more income for the owner and workers) in southern/central coast California. The union workers make around $400 a week which is around $10 an hour. And yes, I have friends again who’s parents own these types of companies too – avacados, strawberries, lemons, oranges, limes, brocolli, onions, cauliflower, peppers, cabbage, etc.

While I agree that $10 an hour is pretty crappy pay, not for the work required for their job, but just pay in general, especially in an expensive place such as this. $10 an hour is average pay for most non-specialist career jobs but it’s also a few dollars more than minimum wage so it doesn’t totally suck as much as it could. So if you’re going to say field workers make horrible pay, say most people make horrible pay in general rather than wording it to sound as if only field workers are getting screwed. And their job isn’t as bad as one would think. Even with all the bending and crouching that they do, it’s not much different from a normal merchandising, stocking, or shipping job as it requires the same constant motions and “on your feet” work. Those all could suck in your mind, but again, don’t single out just field work to be the worst job ever.

And I’m not basing any of this on certain type of criteria as I’m not making this up. If we wanted to have a moral discussion on how things SHOULD be, then I would, but I’m just telling it like it is. But yeah, usually low skill jobs are paid the least. I wouldn’t say less disireable jobs pay the most either. The jobs that pay the most are those that require high skill, experience, or is limited in number. It’s not that people don’t want to do those jobs -- heck, they usually do want to do them due to their pay -- it’s just that it requires too much time, money, studying, and experience to be able to get that job.

Now what would you say about jobs that require low skill yet is also less desireable? That they pay low due to low skill but high due to being less disireable which basically means a fair wage? Well that’s the wage of a field picker. It’s $10 an hour which isn’t minimum wage or below minimum wage nor is it a lot. The only ones that DO get screwed are illegal immigrants, criminals, or convicted felony criminals. But that doesn’t apply just to this job but to darned near almost every job, assuming they get hired at all in the first place, which not getting hired period is the worst pay. ;)

And whew, I’m tired. Long post and since we’re basically just repeating ourselves, let’s end this discussion since people are talking about other subjects now. If ya wanna still continue this though, go ahead and private message me.

- N

Stupid capitalists.

Strip joints take a large percentage of workers tips.

Wow, capitalism is so cool

Why do people around the world want so baddly to come to America? I used to be on of them, and like them i believed that the streets here were made out of gold. i was proved wrong. but still why do people come here both legally and illegally?

As Richard Jeni said (and I'm paraphrasing): "We've got the best sales people in the world. If American was a person, we'd be a used car salesman with a flame thrower. Let's let all of the great salespeople through the flood gate and create a slogan for our country. The best one will probably be: "America: 20,000,000 Illegal Immigrants Can’t Be Wrong." :)

“The customer tips the waiter. Does that mean the tip always goes to the waiter? Nope. For resturants that pay their waiters and bartenders a fair wage, most places keep a portion of the tip. For resturants that pay their waiters around minimum wage, they have the workers split the tips. For resturants that pay their workers below minimum wage, they let them keep the whole tip.”
====================
Wrong.
Either way, does this prove that the reason restaurants are allowed to pay their workers below minimum wage is not so they can stay alive?
What would happen to the food service industry if all restaurants were required to pay their workers minimum wage?
You believe that if all restaurants were required to pay their workers at least minimum wage, the food service industry would not seriously suffer.




“And workers can stay alive being paid below minimum wage because they can make more money in tips than if they were paid a fair wage. And resturants stay alive when they pay their workers a fair wage due to numerous factors such as the price they get for their goods to cook with, or the price they sell their meals for.”
====================
You believe that the restaurant’s main goal is not profit.
They do not pay workers fair wage. They do not even pay workers minimum wage.
Over and over you claim people are getting paid fair wage
Over and over you have do not explain your basis for calculating fair wage.
Survival of the fittest?
Responsibility of the fittest?
As far as I have seen, you learn towards the primitive survival of the fittest idea of what type of work deserves the most pay.
How to calculate fair wage: http://www.caliditta.com/citydesign/cityconcept.htm




“The resturant business is a hard one. It’s usually not because of the lack of money that comes in to pay their workers, but rather not having a resturant that stands out to grab a lot of customers. There are so many places to eat so that makes it all the more harder for customers to choose your place to eat at unless there’s something special about it.”
====================
Therefore, if all restaurants were required to pay their workers at least minimum wage, the food service industry would not seriously suffer?
You continue to propose that paying waiters less than minimum wage is not a critical factor in keeping the restaurant industry alive and thriving.
You believe that if restaurants paid their workers at least minimum wage, the industry would continue to thrive with little hindrance.




“Of course. Not all resturants charge the same price for their meals yet have no problem staying in business. The price isn’t too much of a problem but rather having a nice establishment that makes people want to come to it. For poor people, price usually matters, but for most, they just want to have a good time.”
====================
I never mentioned anything about having a nice establishment. I mentioned if they hike their price up. Nothing else changes.
A restaurant pays their waiters at least double what they are paying them now in order to meet minimum wage.
In order to afford doubling the allocation towards staff expenses, the restaurant would have to get the money somewhere.
Perhaps they should intercept tips away from the waiter.
Of course, you would probably believe that this would not cause any waiter to be disgruntled.
You probably believe that waiters would rather make minimum wage, and would not be upset to do so while the restaurant taxes tip portions.

All you are doing is contradicting the whole situation.
You claim that if all restaurants were required to pay their workers minimum wage, the restaurant industry would do just fine. Therefore, they might as well be required to pay their workers minimum wage.

I proposed that if all restaurants were required to pay their workers minimum wage, the restaurant industry would suffer. Therefore, they should be required to pay their workers at least minimum wage.




“Obviously people want to make the most money as possible. However, things need to be balanced. Most jobs don’t want to have to change workers all the time due to the cost and time it takes to train them. For those that don’t care, they will do whatever possible to make the most money, but for those that care about their place and their workers, they will, yes, take a cut in the amount of money they can make so that while they still do make a nice amount of money, their workers are paid fair as well.

And yes, for places that do not keep the tips for themselves rather than letting the workers have it, they’re taking a loss there so if they were as greedy as you make them out to be, they would keep the tips for themselves since being paid below minimum wage yet being allowed to keep tips is more profitable for the worker than if they were paid a fair wage.”
====================
What you are saying is backwards.
You claim that those that do not care would do whatever possible to make the most money.
Wrong. If they did not care, they would not be doing whatever possible to make money. They do not care.
Those that do care are the ones that will do whatever possible to make money.
They base payments to employees on how much the company will profit.
If restaurants take care of their employees, they do so for one reason and one reason only. Because doing so is profitable. Not doing so will cause lead to losing money.
You believe that most restaurants do not have profit in mind when deciding how much to pay their employees. Any such restaurant that does not care is no doubt going to suffer.
You believe that restaurants do not keep the tip because they are not interested in keeping the waiter, and keeping profit.
Wrong. The reason restaurants do not keep tips is because they have profit in mind.




“Working at quite a few resturants as well as having a bunch of friends who’s family own different types of resturants.”
====================
Is that supposed to be some kind of proof?
Does that really work anywhere out of kindergarten?




“Ya need to check out more places then. I hope you’re not just researching resturant chains.”
====================
Sorry my space ship doesn’t work.
In the mean time, I’ll be dealing with restaurants on earth.




“it all helps out in the end for the owner.”
====================
It sure does.




“Oh, I agree that without tips, “most” resturants wouldn’t survive.”
====================
So now you are saying that employers should pay their waiters minimum wage.
This was my state from the beginning: Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters way less than minimum wage. That's because if waiters are paid minimum wage, restaurants would not make enough profit to stay alive. Therefore, no more restaurants. Having no restaurants to America is equivalent to the punishment of bruning in hell.




“so we get lots of resturants so there’s no worry.”
====================
Contradiction.




“Not EVERY field worker is some illegal immigrant that can be taken advantage of.”
====================
Are you proposing that the reason we allow seasonal farm slaves to plow the fields is that we have to many Americans to plow the fields?
You make no sense.
What is your expert opinion on the reason we hire seasonal farm slaves to do jobs that we should be the first priority for us to handle ourselves. Or do you believe that feeding the population is not a top priority?




“While I agree that $10 an hour is pretty crappy pay, not for the work required for their job”
====================
You continuously refuse to provide your basis for calculating good pay.
It is well obvious that you have a primitive basis for calculation.
$10/hr in this economy is extremely crappy pay for that type of work.
That type of work deserves 10-20 times that per hour. If not more.




“And I’m not basing any of this on certain type of criteria as I’m not making this up.”
====================
How do you figure?
You constantly reiterate how one this person is getting paid well and that person is getting paid fair.
You are basing it on criteria. You are basing it on primitive criteria.




“If we wanted to have a moral discussion on how things SHOULD be, then I would, but I’m just telling it like it is.”
====================
Wrong. A person deserves to be paid based on desirability and inmportance of a job. That is how it is, and that is how it will always be.
Nobody deserves to be paid according to your primitive standards of survival of the fittest.
TYou not only have proven to have a primitive basis for calculating wage, you advocate fakism like it’s the answer to all.




“it’s just that it requires too much time, money, studying, and experience to be able to get that job.”
====================
That’s the whole basis of the concept.




Now what would you say about jobs that require low skill yet is also less desireable? That they pay low due to low skill but high due to being less disireable which basically means a fair wage?
====================
Wrong.