corny joke

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.

Why should it be that I can only make 60,000 a year? Sure, I can live off of that kind of money, and it would probably get me a house, a car, and maybe a boat or something, but what gives the government the right to steal the rest of my money? Go to sweeden. There are people living the billionare lifestyle there. How do they do that if they're being taxed so much? The answer is, that they're not being totally above board with their money. They have friends in high places. Look at the Soviet state of the past. People still had mansions, people were still rich, while others suffered. You can't legislate against greed because the legislators themselves are greedy. You can't legislate against human nature.

I'm pretty sure CERN is in Switzerland, but that's a different conversation entirely.

Capitalism is the system I would prefer. I'm allowed to advance or fail. In the case that I advance, great, everyone gets something out of it, but in the case I fail, no one gets anything out of it, including me. Of course, I could just play it safe and keep myself employed at a large company, go to school, blah blah blah, be a boring person, but I'm also allowed to go out and make myself something.

The only thing that Sweden produces is more of the same, while the US is producing technological advance after technological advance. Why? Because people are allowed to reap the benefits of their work. They are allowed to prosper when the are profitable. Take that away, and why bother having an R&D department that will never be profitable. Why bother inventing a new product when you'll never be rewarded for revolutionizing an industry?

every economic system we have in the world today ends up being a duble edge sword in some fashion. but in the grand scheme, if the only drawback is slowed advancement in technology. i would take that over losing everything because of a risky market. you can't really fail in socialist economies, and thats good. because it makes people more comfortable with taking chances. because they know if it doesn't work, they will still have a leg to stand on.

and you shouldn't be able to make more than 60k a year because you wouldnt need more. how can you honestly justify making six figures, when there are people out there who can't get any form of work at all? it all boils down to we as americans need to develop a sense of community. and in doing so we need to recognize those who cannot work, and not punish them with ridicule and hardship for. but rather help them get the things they need to actually bounce back and return to being a funcionting member of society. capitalism is at its core against people surviving failures. and that's just not right.

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.

Sweeden is a socialist paradise where you're only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Everything over that is taxed away. I don't want that. I would prefer to be allowed to keep my money. That kind of taxation won't work here.

Oh, businesses wouldn't fire all their workers at once, they would just find silly reasons to fire them. "You stole a pen yesterday, we're going to have to let you go." "You threw away perfectly good material, we're going to have to let you go." larger businesses will probably keep their current employees and never hire older people again, but you're seriously going to hamstring the older people with laws like that.

Well, some people prefer skim or 2%. That's their choice. But whole milk does cost extra. Personally, l like 2%.

You can't legislate away greed. They tried that in Orange county in California. Now their apartment economy is broken. They tried that in Germany, and the Mark became trash paper. We're doing that now with interest rates in banks, and we're turning our own money into trash paper. Changes need to be made, but changing things because it makes you feel good is a terrible idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

i understand to desire to be able to bring yourself, and not have a cap on earnings. its the basis for capitalism. i just can't get behind it. because you can legislate against greed. if no one can make more than a certain amount each year, there is no room for greed. if you have everything you need. with plenty left over to either save or splurge, why do you need more? with a socialist system, of course there will be certain assholes who try to loophole their way around the earnings limit, but one pissed off secretary puts them in prison. the only reason to allow for people to earn more then say 60000 a year, is to placate the greed that drives so many of us. if people can only earn so much, prices fall because people won't pay for things so artificially inflated. more jobs will become available because people with needlessly high salaries will now hit caps. and the people who can't work will be properly takenn care of. healthcare will be universal, education will grow in all areas with higher pay, and better equipment for all districts. cops will be more plentful and better trained. capitalism does nothing good for a large society, that socialism doesn't do as well or better.

well, capitalism can help increase industrial advancement. but cern, one of the most advanced buildings on earth isn't in america, its in switzerland. so socialism can do that too.

also with the milk, if skim or 2% was actually cheaper it would be fine. when i go the the market, whole skim, and 2% are all the same price.

Why should it be that I can only make 60,000 a year? Sure, I can live off of that kind of money, and it would probably get me a house, a car, and maybe a boat or something, but what gives the government the right to steal the rest of my money? Go to sweeden. There are people living the billionare lifestyle there. How do they do that if they're being taxed so much? The answer is, that they're not being totally above board with their money. They have friends in high places. Look at the Soviet state of the past. People still had mansions, people were still rich, while others suffered. You can't legislate against greed because the legislators themselves are greedy. You can't legislate against human nature.

I'm pretty sure CERN is in Switzerland, but that's a different conversation entirely.

Capitalism is the system I would prefer. I'm allowed to advance or fail. In the case that I advance, great, everyone gets something out of it, but in the case I fail, no one gets anything out of it, including me. Of course, I could just play it safe and keep myself employed at a large company, go to school, blah blah blah, be a boring person, but I'm also allowed to go out and make myself something.

The only thing that Sweden produces is more of the same, while the US is producing technological advance after technological advance. Why? Because people are allowed to reap the benefits of their work. They are allowed to prosper when the are profitable. Take that away, and why bother having an R&D department that will never be profitable. Why bother inventing a new product when you'll never be rewarded for revolutionizing an industry?

every economic system we have in the world today ends up being a duble edge sword in some fashion. but in the grand scheme, if the only drawback is slowed advancement in technology. i would take that over losing everything because of a risky market. you can't really fail in socialist economies, and thats good. because it makes people more comfortable with taking chances. because they know if it doesn't work, they will still have a leg to stand on.

and you shouldn't be able to make more than 60k a year because you wouldnt need more. how can you honestly justify making six figures, when there are people out there who can't get any form of work at all? it all boils down to we as americans need to develop a sense of community. and in doing so we need to recognize those who cannot work, and not punish them with ridicule and hardship for. but rather help them get the things they need to actually bounce back and return to being a funcionting member of society. capitalism is at its core against people surviving failures. and that's just not right.

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.

It doesn't matter how watered down your paint is. There are three other companies of equal size to your own who want to under cut your paint. The best way to do that is to provide a superior product at the same cost, or slightly above your cost.

The box always identifies counterfeit money, because one (actually several hundred) cog is called Federal Government, and they take personal offense to you trying to produce something out of nothing. If you actually produce something, they get very mad.

I'm about to turn 25. I work at a buisnes that hires skilled labor. Believe me. By the time you're 22, you're either skilled labor, or you're just labor. My job shouldn't be able to pay me as much as they do, but because most of their business takes place over seas, they can afford to spend a little more here. Lucky for me, but unlucky for everyone else in every other country. With your idea I would be out of a job tomorrow, because a 19 year old kid could do my job after 20 days of training, and that's a fact. My job is simple. All I do is handle hazmat materials when they come through my building.

Greed is a powerful force to be sure. I'm a little worried what you're suggesting would land me in the realm of 'no job' really quickly.

you say that, and it makes some sense, but if you look at countries like denmark or sweden. that run on socialist economies, where the government heavily regulates everything, and people are given very good minimum wages. people didn't lose their jobs when the system was put in place. people gained them.

furthermore, if a bunch of business immediately after my dual min wage idea was implemented, suddenly cut a huge number of employees in favor of younger workers. there would be huge discrimination lawsuits against all of them, and they know it.

and the box obviously doesn't always catch counterfeits, because businesses sell 2% or skim milk for the same price as whole. even though it is literally just watered down milk.

we need to make major changes, how those changes are made, doesn't matter as much, as whether or not they are. there need to be laws and regulations implemented in the very near future, that essentially make actions based in greed illegal. (metaphorically speaking). and while my ideas are probably not the correct solution, i feel they are at the very least a good base with which to develop the conversation, that will hopefully lead to large meaningful changes that help the country as a whole get back on track.

Sweeden is a socialist paradise where you're only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Everything over that is taxed away. I don't want that. I would prefer to be allowed to keep my money. That kind of taxation won't work here.

Oh, businesses wouldn't fire all their workers at once, they would just find silly reasons to fire them. "You stole a pen yesterday, we're going to have to let you go." "You threw away perfectly good material, we're going to have to let you go." larger businesses will probably keep their current employees and never hire older people again, but you're seriously going to hamstring the older people with laws like that.

Well, some people prefer skim or 2%. That's their choice. But whole milk does cost extra. Personally, l like 2%.

You can't legislate away greed. They tried that in Orange county in California. Now their apartment economy is broken. They tried that in Germany, and the Mark became trash paper. We're doing that now with interest rates in banks, and we're turning our own money into trash paper. Changes need to be made, but changing things because it makes you feel good is a terrible idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

i understand to desire to be able to bring yourself, and not have a cap on earnings. its the basis for capitalism. i just can't get behind it. because you can legislate against greed. if no one can make more than a certain amount each year, there is no room for greed. if you have everything you need. with plenty left over to either save or splurge, why do you need more? with a socialist system, of course there will be certain assholes who try to loophole their way around the earnings limit, but one pissed off secretary puts them in prison. the only reason to allow for people to earn more then say 60000 a year, is to placate the greed that drives so many of us. if people can only earn so much, prices fall because people won't pay for things so artificially inflated. more jobs will become available because people with needlessly high salaries will now hit caps. and the people who can't work will be properly takenn care of. healthcare will be universal, education will grow in all areas with higher pay, and better equipment for all districts. cops will be more plentful and better trained. capitalism does nothing good for a large society, that socialism doesn't do as well or better.

well, capitalism can help increase industrial advancement. but cern, one of the most advanced buildings on earth isn't in america, its in switzerland. so socialism can do that too.

also with the milk, if skim or 2% was actually cheaper it would be fine. when i go the the market, whole skim, and 2% are all the same price.

Why should it be that I can only make 60,000 a year? Sure, I can live off of that kind of money, and it would probably get me a house, a car, and maybe a boat or something, but what gives the government the right to steal the rest of my money? Go to sweeden. There are people living the billionare lifestyle there. How do they do that if they're being taxed so much? The answer is, that they're not being totally above board with their money. They have friends in high places. Look at the Soviet state of the past. People still had mansions, people were still rich, while others suffered. You can't legislate against greed because the legislators themselves are greedy. You can't legislate against human nature.

I'm pretty sure CERN is in Switzerland, but that's a different conversation entirely.

Capitalism is the system I would prefer. I'm allowed to advance or fail. In the case that I advance, great, everyone gets something out of it, but in the case I fail, no one gets anything out of it, including me. Of course, I could just play it safe and keep myself employed at a large company, go to school, blah blah blah, be a boring person, but I'm also allowed to go out and make myself something.

The only thing that Sweden produces is more of the same, while the US is producing technological advance after technological advance. Why? Because people are allowed to reap the benefits of their work. They are allowed to prosper when the are profitable. Take that away, and why bother having an R&D department that will never be profitable. Why bother inventing a new product when you'll never be rewarded for revolutionizing an industry?

every economic system we have in the world today ends up being a duble edge sword in some fashion. but in the grand scheme, if the only drawback is slowed advancement in technology. i would take that over losing everything because of a risky market. you can't really fail in socialist economies, and thats good. because it makes people more comfortable with taking chances. because they know if it doesn't work, they will still have a leg to stand on.

and you shouldn't be able to make more than 60k a year because you wouldnt need more. how can you honestly justify making six figures, when there are people out there who can't get any form of work at all? it all boils down to we as americans need to develop a sense of community. and in doing so we need to recognize those who cannot work, and not punish them with ridicule and hardship for. but rather help them get the things they need to actually bounce back and return to being a funcionting member of society. capitalism is at its core against people surviving failures. and that's just not right.

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Just. Entirely wrong. Now, you may think that I'm talking out my ass, and you can think that, because this is an internet conversation. BUT

You are the paint tycoon. You charge twice the amount it would normally cost for a bucket of paint. Meanwhile, I'm a local business that makes my own paint. I order form the same people as you do, and I have replicas of all your machines. What stops me from underselling your paint?

More than that? What stops two giant paint companies selling under selling their competition? In reality, most companies make about 8% on their product. If you go to the bank today and show them how you can make 10% profit annually like clockwork, they'll throw as much money at you as you can carry.

No buisness in the US is loosing money. If they started loosing money they would just shut down and open a different kind of business.

Think of it this way. You have a black box, and that box has two holes in it. In the one hole you put a dollar in. After a certian amount of time, a dollar and 10 cents fall out the other hole. Sometimes, you decide you can make your box produce a dollar and 11 cents, so you open the box, remove a gear and replace it with a spring. Sometimes that makes the box turn a dollar into a dollar and 11 cents, sometimes it turns that dollar into 98 cents, and sometimes, very occasionally that makes the box drop two dollars. What do you do with a box that takes your dollar and drops out 98 cents? If you think you can take out the spring and replace the gear then great, but what happens if putting in a spring strips 13 other gears? Your box is broken. What do you do with it?

Businesses are as transparent as the can be. They must publish certain figures. BUT, there are certain pieces of information that they can not, and will not post, because it would give their competition an edge over them.

The two minimum wage ideas is fine, but if I'm a business owner, and I could hire a bunch of 16-21 year olds and pay them less why would I bother with hiring adults to begin with?

Ranting is fine, this is the internet after all. We're not going to be elected president and vice president of funnyjunk depending on how this conversation turns out.

as the paint tycoon, i wouldn't sell my paint at some huge cost to meet with the low price of a local business. i would water it down then sell it cheaper. i would sell 1 part paint, 2 parts water, for a slightly lower price than the local business offers for 3 parts paint. not much less, but enough so that people will say, well this paint sucks, but it still kinda does the job and its cheaper. then i come out with some platinum version, that is 2 parts paint, one part water, and make the price higher. so people notice the difference, and pay more for my "superior product" even though it is still lesser than the local business. but because they know my brand, and have always felt that my brand was the better deal, they will continue to buy.

its like that box you described, imagine if it couldn't identify counterfeit money. people would put some real cash in, to be able to tell the truth when they say i put money in. but most is fake. the problem being everything they get out is real.

as a business owner, in smaller areas, like a fast food chain, you're right, they wouldn't hire anyone over 21. but some places require more experience, and therefore older workers. furthermore, if they stay on as employees after they turn 22 they will have to up their wage. it's far from perfect. but it's slightly better than what we currently have.

i don't think you're talking out your ass, right now i just think you underestimate the greed of corporations.

It doesn't matter how watered down your paint is. There are three other companies of equal size to your own who want to under cut your paint. The best way to do that is to provide a superior product at the same cost, or slightly above your cost.

The box always identifies counterfeit money, because one (actually several hundred) cog is called Federal Government, and they take personal offense to you trying to produce something out of nothing. If you actually produce something, they get very mad.

I'm about to turn 25. I work at a buisnes that hires skilled labor. Believe me. By the time you're 22, you're either skilled labor, or you're just labor. My job shouldn't be able to pay me as much as they do, but because most of their business takes place over seas, they can afford to spend a little more here. Lucky for me, but unlucky for everyone else in every other country. With your idea I would be out of a job tomorrow, because a 19 year old kid could do my job after 20 days of training, and that's a fact. My job is simple. All I do is handle hazmat materials when they come through my building.

Greed is a powerful force to be sure. I'm a little worried what you're suggesting would land me in the realm of 'no job' really quickly.

you say that, and it makes some sense, but if you look at countries like denmark or sweden. that run on socialist economies, where the government heavily regulates everything, and people are given very good minimum wages. people didn't lose their jobs when the system was put in place. people gained them.

furthermore, if a bunch of business immediately after my dual min wage idea was implemented, suddenly cut a huge number of employees in favor of younger workers. there would be huge discrimination lawsuits against all of them, and they know it.

and the box obviously doesn't always catch counterfeits, because businesses sell 2% or skim milk for the same price as whole. even though it is literally just watered down milk.

we need to make major changes, how those changes are made, doesn't matter as much, as whether or not they are. there need to be laws and regulations implemented in the very near future, that essentially make actions based in greed illegal. (metaphorically speaking). and while my ideas are probably not the correct solution, i feel they are at the very least a good base with which to develop the conversation, that will hopefully lead to large meaningful changes that help the country as a whole get back on track.

Sweeden is a socialist paradise where you're only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Everything over that is taxed away. I don't want that. I would prefer to be allowed to keep my money. That kind of taxation won't work here.

Oh, businesses wouldn't fire all their workers at once, they would just find silly reasons to fire them. "You stole a pen yesterday, we're going to have to let you go." "You threw away perfectly good material, we're going to have to let you go." larger businesses will probably keep their current employees and never hire older people again, but you're seriously going to hamstring the older people with laws like that.

Well, some people prefer skim or 2%. That's their choice. But whole milk does cost extra. Personally, l like 2%.

You can't legislate away greed. They tried that in Orange county in California. Now their apartment economy is broken. They tried that in Germany, and the Mark became trash paper. We're doing that now with interest rates in banks, and we're turning our own money into trash paper. Changes need to be made, but changing things because it makes you feel good is a terrible idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

i understand to desire to be able to bring yourself, and not have a cap on earnings. its the basis for capitalism. i just can't get behind it. because you can legislate against greed. if no one can make more than a certain amount each year, there is no room for greed. if you have everything you need. with plenty left over to either save or splurge, why do you need more? with a socialist system, of course there will be certain assholes who try to loophole their way around the earnings limit, but one pissed off secretary puts them in prison. the only reason to allow for people to earn more then say 60000 a year, is to placate the greed that drives so many of us. if people can only earn so much, prices fall because people won't pay for things so artificially inflated. more jobs will become available because people with needlessly high salaries will now hit caps. and the people who can't work will be properly takenn care of. healthcare will be universal, education will grow in all areas with higher pay, and better equipment for all districts. cops will be more plentful and better trained. capitalism does nothing good for a large society, that socialism doesn't do as well or better.

well, capitalism can help increase industrial advancement. but cern, one of the most advanced buildings on earth isn't in america, its in switzerland. so socialism can do that too.

also with the milk, if skim or 2% was actually cheaper it would be fine. when i go the the market, whole skim, and 2% are all the same price.

Why should it be that I can only make 60,000 a year? Sure, I can live off of that kind of money, and it would probably get me a house, a car, and maybe a boat or something, but what gives the government the right to steal the rest of my money? Go to sweeden. There are people living the billionare lifestyle there. How do they do that if they're being taxed so much? The answer is, that they're not being totally above board with their money. They have friends in high places. Look at the Soviet state of the past. People still had mansions, people were still rich, while others suffered. You can't legislate against greed because the legislators themselves are greedy. You can't legislate against human nature.

I'm pretty sure CERN is in Switzerland, but that's a different conversation entirely.

Capitalism is the system I would prefer. I'm allowed to advance or fail. In the case that I advance, great, everyone gets something out of it, but in the case I fail, no one gets anything out of it, including me. Of course, I could just play it safe and keep myself employed at a large company, go to school, blah blah blah, be a boring person, but I'm also allowed to go out and make myself something.

The only thing that Sweden produces is more of the same, while the US is producing technological advance after technological advance. Why? Because people are allowed to reap the benefits of their work. They are allowed to prosper when the are profitable. Take that away, and why bother having an R&D department that will never be profitable. Why bother inventing a new product when you'll never be rewarded for revolutionizing an industry?

every economic system we have in the world today ends up being a duble edge sword in some fashion. but in the grand scheme, if the only drawback is slowed advancement in technology. i would take that over losing everything because of a risky market. you can't really fail in socialist economies, and thats good. because it makes people more comfortable with taking chances. because they know if it doesn't work, they will still have a leg to stand on.

and you shouldn't be able to make more than 60k a year because you wouldnt need more. how can you honestly justify making six figures, when there are people out there who can't get any form of work at all? it all boils down to we as americans need to develop a sense of community. and in doing so we need to recognize those who cannot work, and not punish them with ridicule and hardship for. but rather help them get the things they need to actually bounce back and return to being a funcionting member of society. capitalism is at its core against people surviving failures. and that's just not right.

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.

I think you're missing the point.

OK, pain is capped at $3. Great. If I can't make paint profitable then I shut the business down, fire the employees, and mothball the equipment until paint becomes a viable business again. I'm not going to wait around to be fined. I'll just move on to a field you haven't regulated.

In the end, no one sells paint any more and people start using wall paper because there has been little demand for wallpaper. The problem is that with the new demand, wallpaper becomes expensive until you step in and demand it be provided for $3 a roll.

Then people start not finishing their walls and because the sheet rock the wall is made out of has no protection it absorbs everything liquid that touches it and begins to rot, so people go to buy more sheet rock to hang. Problem is, no one sells that either, because it's also regulated into oblivion.

And on, and on, and on. We've seen how this goes before. At the end of the road the government has to take over the paint and wall paper, and drywall industry because they've made it impossible to do buisness honestly in any of these fields. They provide a can of paint for $3, and a roll of paper for $3, but the companies they own are all loosing money hand over fist, so they raise taxes to cover the difference.

it's a never ending cycle until every single commodity available for purchase is heavily regulated. i understand how this is counter productive. but at the same time, we live in a world where we can go to home depot and go to the paint section. and be charged 10 bucks for a gallon of paint, and have it be just as watered down as it would be in your scenario. because they want to make more money.

we exist in an economy where companies are doing things as if they were strangled into a corner, and were losing money like crazy, when they most assuredly aren't. and doing it more and more, and charging us more and more simultaneously.

at the heart of it, what i think im saying is we need transparency. businesses should not have closed doors to do shady shit behind. homes should have standards rates that are affordable on reasonable wages. if everything was in the open we wouldn't need regulation, because informed customers wouldn't buy products from people who water down paint because they might make a little less money.

furthermore, there should be two "minimum" wages. one for people 16-21, the people in or just out of school, who are not yet independent, and are using the job to gain experience, and a living minimum wage, for anyone older, which must be high enough to live on where one lives.

sorry if my ranting skews from the main point from time to time. i have a loooot of anger pent up at our current system.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Just. Entirely wrong. Now, you may think that I'm talking out my ass, and you can think that, because this is an internet conversation. BUT

You are the paint tycoon. You charge twice the amount it would normally cost for a bucket of paint. Meanwhile, I'm a local business that makes my own paint. I order form the same people as you do, and I have replicas of all your machines. What stops me from underselling your paint?

More than that? What stops two giant paint companies selling under selling their competition? In reality, most companies make about 8% on their product. If you go to the bank today and show them how you can make 10% profit annually like clockwork, they'll throw as much money at you as you can carry.

No buisness in the US is loosing money. If they started loosing money they would just shut down and open a different kind of business.

Think of it this way. You have a black box, and that box has two holes in it. In the one hole you put a dollar in. After a certian amount of time, a dollar and 10 cents fall out the other hole. Sometimes, you decide you can make your box produce a dollar and 11 cents, so you open the box, remove a gear and replace it with a spring. Sometimes that makes the box turn a dollar into a dollar and 11 cents, sometimes it turns that dollar into 98 cents, and sometimes, very occasionally that makes the box drop two dollars. What do you do with a box that takes your dollar and drops out 98 cents? If you think you can take out the spring and replace the gear then great, but what happens if putting in a spring strips 13 other gears? Your box is broken. What do you do with it?

Businesses are as transparent as the can be. They must publish certain figures. BUT, there are certain pieces of information that they can not, and will not post, because it would give their competition an edge over them.

The two minimum wage ideas is fine, but if I'm a business owner, and I could hire a bunch of 16-21 year olds and pay them less why would I bother with hiring adults to begin with?

Ranting is fine, this is the internet after all. We're not going to be elected president and vice president of funnyjunk depending on how this conversation turns out.

as the paint tycoon, i wouldn't sell my paint at some huge cost to meet with the low price of a local business. i would water it down then sell it cheaper. i would sell 1 part paint, 2 parts water, for a slightly lower price than the local business offers for 3 parts paint. not much less, but enough so that people will say, well this paint sucks, but it still kinda does the job and its cheaper. then i come out with some platinum version, that is 2 parts paint, one part water, and make the price higher. so people notice the difference, and pay more for my "superior product" even though it is still lesser than the local business. but because they know my brand, and have always felt that my brand was the better deal, they will continue to buy.

its like that box you described, imagine if it couldn't identify counterfeit money. people would put some real cash in, to be able to tell the truth when they say i put money in. but most is fake. the problem being everything they get out is real.

as a business owner, in smaller areas, like a fast food chain, you're right, they wouldn't hire anyone over 21. but some places require more experience, and therefore older workers. furthermore, if they stay on as employees after they turn 22 they will have to up their wage. it's far from perfect. but it's slightly better than what we currently have.

i don't think you're talking out your ass, right now i just think you underestimate the greed of corporations.

It doesn't matter how watered down your paint is. There are three other companies of equal size to your own who want to under cut your paint. The best way to do that is to provide a superior product at the same cost, or slightly above your cost.

The box always identifies counterfeit money, because one (actually several hundred) cog is called Federal Government, and they take personal offense to you trying to produce something out of nothing. If you actually produce something, they get very mad.

I'm about to turn 25. I work at a buisnes that hires skilled labor. Believe me. By the time you're 22, you're either skilled labor, or you're just labor. My job shouldn't be able to pay me as much as they do, but because most of their business takes place over seas, they can afford to spend a little more here. Lucky for me, but unlucky for everyone else in every other country. With your idea I would be out of a job tomorrow, because a 19 year old kid could do my job after 20 days of training, and that's a fact. My job is simple. All I do is handle hazmat materials when they come through my building.

Greed is a powerful force to be sure. I'm a little worried what you're suggesting would land me in the realm of 'no job' really quickly.

you say that, and it makes some sense, but if you look at countries like denmark or sweden. that run on socialist economies, where the government heavily regulates everything, and people are given very good minimum wages. people didn't lose their jobs when the system was put in place. people gained them.

furthermore, if a bunch of business immediately after my dual min wage idea was implemented, suddenly cut a huge number of employees in favor of younger workers. there would be huge discrimination lawsuits against all of them, and they know it.

and the box obviously doesn't always catch counterfeits, because businesses sell 2% or skim milk for the same price as whole. even though it is literally just watered down milk.

we need to make major changes, how those changes are made, doesn't matter as much, as whether or not they are. there need to be laws and regulations implemented in the very near future, that essentially make actions based in greed illegal. (metaphorically speaking). and while my ideas are probably not the correct solution, i feel they are at the very least a good base with which to develop the conversation, that will hopefully lead to large meaningful changes that help the country as a whole get back on track.

Sweeden is a socialist paradise where you're only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Everything over that is taxed away. I don't want that. I would prefer to be allowed to keep my money. That kind of taxation won't work here.

Oh, businesses wouldn't fire all their workers at once, they would just find silly reasons to fire them. "You stole a pen yesterday, we're going to have to let you go." "You threw away perfectly good material, we're going to have to let you go." larger businesses will probably keep their current employees and never hire older people again, but you're seriously going to hamstring the older people with laws like that.

Well, some people prefer skim or 2%. That's their choice. But whole milk does cost extra. Personally, l like 2%.

You can't legislate away greed. They tried that in Orange county in California. Now their apartment economy is broken. They tried that in Germany, and the Mark became trash paper. We're doing that now with interest rates in banks, and we're turning our own money into trash paper. Changes need to be made, but changing things because it makes you feel good is a terrible idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

i understand to desire to be able to bring yourself, and not have a cap on earnings. its the basis for capitalism. i just can't get behind it. because you can legislate against greed. if no one can make more than a certain amount each year, there is no room for greed. if you have everything you need. with plenty left over to either save or splurge, why do you need more? with a socialist system, of course there will be certain assholes who try to loophole their way around the earnings limit, but one pissed off secretary puts them in prison. the only reason to allow for people to earn more then say 60000 a year, is to placate the greed that drives so many of us. if people can only earn so much, prices fall because people won't pay for things so artificially inflated. more jobs will become available because people with needlessly high salaries will now hit caps. and the people who can't work will be properly takenn care of. healthcare will be universal, education will grow in all areas with higher pay, and better equipment for all districts. cops will be more plentful and better trained. capitalism does nothing good for a large society, that socialism doesn't do as well or better.

well, capitalism can help increase industrial advancement. but cern, one of the most advanced buildings on earth isn't in america, its in switzerland. so socialism can do that too.

also with the milk, if skim or 2% was actually cheaper it would be fine. when i go the the market, whole skim, and 2% are all the same price.

Why should it be that I can only make 60,000 a year? Sure, I can live off of that kind of money, and it would probably get me a house, a car, and maybe a boat or something, but what gives the government the right to steal the rest of my money? Go to sweeden. There are people living the billionare lifestyle there. How do they do that if they're being taxed so much? The answer is, that they're not being totally above board with their money. They have friends in high places. Look at the Soviet state of the past. People still had mansions, people were still rich, while others suffered. You can't legislate against greed because the legislators themselves are greedy. You can't legislate against human nature.

I'm pretty sure CERN is in Switzerland, but that's a different conversation entirely.

Capitalism is the system I would prefer. I'm allowed to advance or fail. In the case that I advance, great, everyone gets something out of it, but in the case I fail, no one gets anything out of it, including me. Of course, I could just play it safe and keep myself employed at a large company, go to school, blah blah blah, be a boring person, but I'm also allowed to go out and make myself something.

The only thing that Sweden produces is more of the same, while the US is producing technological advance after technological advance. Why? Because people are allowed to reap the benefits of their work. They are allowed to prosper when the are profitable. Take that away, and why bother having an R&D department that will never be profitable. Why bother inventing a new product when you'll never be rewarded for revolutionizing an industry?

every economic system we have in the world today ends up being a duble edge sword in some fashion. but in the grand scheme, if the only drawback is slowed advancement in technology. i would take that over losing everything because of a risky market. you can't really fail in socialist economies, and thats good. because it makes people more comfortable with taking chances. because they know if it doesn't work, they will still have a leg to stand on.

and you shouldn't be able to make more than 60k a year because you wouldnt need more. how can you honestly justify making six figures, when there are people out there who can't get any form of work at all? it all boils down to we as americans need to develop a sense of community. and in doing so we need to recognize those who cannot work, and not punish them with ridicule and hardship for. but rather help them get the things they need to actually bounce back and return to being a funcionting member of society. capitalism is at its core against people surviving failures. and that's just not right.

We could pay every person who can't work a living wage to stay home. We could pay people to deliver there supplies if they can't leave the house. The problem is that every social program we're employing right now is paying people who can work to sit at home and not work. I'm not alright with that.

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of how the country should work. I would rather be allowed to own what is mine, and you would be alright with giving your money away. Both systems are fine, but under the system we live in now, you are free to give your money away and I am free to keep my money. I think that's a pretty good system.