Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 7 billion people - 7 billion jobs.

Posted 10 years ago on April 5, 2012, 12:21 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All at equal pay.. including training.

How do we sort out who does what ?

-serious question-



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Personally I don't want a 'job'. I currently make money doing contract work and selling products I have created. I would like to spend some of my time working in the gardens where my food is grown. Only I do not have access to land to grow anything 0.1% of the people here claim it belongs to them.
I would like to not pay taxes to fund big military, big police-state, big oil, etc. I would happily pay taxes to fund local, national, and international programs of social and ecological uplift. Our world needs a re-design, and many people have envisioned many tantalizing alternatives to a 0.1% rule and shades of wage slavery, with ecocide and endless wars the only guiding light.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

Save your money and buy some land. You can buy land in South Dakota for $415/acre. http://www.cheaplandinamerica.com/premier/index.php?a=2&b=573

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Yeah, I got that going on, it is however still a bit tough to get money together. I am thinking to buy with a group of people and do a small village community project. Thanks for the link!

"Ecovillages are urban or rural communities of people, who strive to integrate a supportive social environment with a low-impact way of life. To achieve this, they integrate various aspects of ecological design, permaculture, ecological building, green production, alternative energy, community building practices, and much more."

from; http://gen.ecovillage.org/ecovillages/whatisanecovillage.html

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 10 years ago

I don't want to burst your bubble but factory farms are polluting small farmers land with seed and then suing them for patent infringement in order to drive them out - nothing can be done/ achieved until we weed out monopolies and re-design the system first. You can only escape it for so long they won't let you live in peace or in freedom. They want to control everything especially the land.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

The idea is to put right living and right livelihood into daily practice, to relocalize the community you live in, by connecting people with the producers of the food, energy, and goods they use daily. This is a counter cultural move, as the corporate culture wants only; obedient workers and blind consumers. Buy providing an alternative system of societal support, we enable and encourage more people to look away from the corporate systems, and to build new organic interdependent and global systems of people working together for mutual benefit.

You burst no bubble, I am well aware of the world as it is.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

It is a tough life but can be very rewarding if you can make it work. IN the sixties most of these communities fell apart due to social breakdown. They tried to do it on their own and separate themselves from the rest of society.

The villages your article talks about have been very successful. They have thrived because of their capitalist leaning. They offer classes, consulting, workshops, sell videos, books...

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Many of the communities established in the 60-70s are still going strong actually, not sure where you pulled that info from? Here is just on of many; http://www.thefarm.org

Participating in the economy is not a 'capitalist leaning', we all need to exchange goods and services with each other. Capitalists hold 'the market' up as the end in itself, when it is but one tool of human organisation, and it does not work alone in a vacuum. We need a balance of market freedoms and collective ownership/responsibility of resources. capitalism+socialism=balanced system.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

I watched a program on the History channel that chronicled several communes from that era and interviewed some of the members today. They talked about how they lived and what caused them to fail, and what they would have done different. For several of them the problem was sexual freedom and drugs. These both lead to social problems, fighting. Also as time went on some were not pulling their weight. Some of the "farms" that lasted longer had rock groups supporting them like the Grateful Dead, Ken Kesey, and the Merry Pranksters however even these fell apart. I do not remember the name of the program.

Yes a few survived but there were dozens and dozens that failed.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 10 years ago

www.nationalday911.org check it out


[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

There is only one owner to the land and it is the US GOVERNMENT. We pay for a spot of land that we keep paying for ( taxes) until we die. The government can take land from you for any reason and simply call it economic growth reason then sell it to a private company to develop it so then the government can get more tax money from it.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

the government is not a monolithic creature, it is our collective organisation. or that is what it should be,. currently it is controlled by the 0.1%, the self proclaimed owners of this county, and it conforms to their collective will not ours. We aim to change that.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

It is not monolithic YET. That that is what it seems the left and some on the right want it to become.

But are the ones we see the one in control or the one we do not see pulling the strings? How do you know that OWS does not have strings connected to it. You could be trading one unseen for other unseen and not even know it.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

I normally do not question things I can test, I test them. That is the point about not wanting to just change the leaders, we are working to change the very system. If you remove the elements that are corruptible, i.e. elected representatives, you build a system that involves everyone that is interested in contributing, a fully transparent and open source human organisation, not anything like 'government' as we know it now. Just communities organizing themselves and networking with other communities, worldwide for the greater good.

Seems simple to me, don't know what the opposition to changing a broken part on our human made organisational structure is really, looks like a few greedy egos are pushing everything in very dumb directions currently, and that is what we are changing now.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

In the history of this planet you want the human species to do something that it has never done before. Not crave power over others, When you has a disagreement to not end up killing each other of it. Not seek revenge for perceived insults and the like. I live in the real world, Your world is nice to a few but others will not agree with you if it keeps them from power.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

I see that the vast majority of people are quite reasonable and want to simply live in peace. When the people find that the only true power comes from them joining together in a community of communities, the few with their power fetishes will be hard pressed to find a way to dominate the majority.

The fearful threats the warmongers currently cling to will fade as people grow more interconnected and learn the truth of that.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

That may be true in time to come, but right now there are major ethnic problems around the world with and without religion. But even if the majority want peace they are easily moved to distrust others and later to hate them and this is moved by just a few. It has always been the few motivated to make change as you all here on OWS want to do. You are NOT great in numbers but you can if given the right conditions move the majority. Right now those conditions are here and you are trying. But there are many in your group that will and has used violence as a tool to get there way.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Most of the fighting around the world has corporate bakers on both sides, often fomented to distract while resources are plundered.

"many in your group that will and has used violence as a tool to get there way" Really? Where are these people? You are just making up sht.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

This I do not agree with. But then maybe you just need to give some hard facts other then hearsay, or Hearsay from others.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

I base this on years of observation, where do all those guns in war zones come from? just have a look at the arms dealers, all tied to the various banks, yes they make money selling the weapons, however this is hardly the only motive. Anyway, the point is, that many of the current 'conflicts' in the world can be winded down when we pull back on the banks and their arms distribution departments.

if the human species as you call us,. can not do something it has never done befor then what is the point of life?

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

You are not human?????!!!!!!! or are not part of the human species????!!!???

I could be ignorant of the facts that banks have arms distribution departments and work at making the conflict last or work at starting them. Do you have any proof other then your observation?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago


one of HUNDREDS of sources regarding how they express their greed on the people and the world.

also; halliburton, xe/blackwater, etc.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Last i looked but Halliburton is not a gun company and you only hate them because of VP Dick Cheney. So what about GE? hmmmmm how about a litte heat on all these Companies. GE is the BIG one and hmmm just like Cheney how does Obama have from GE. hmmmmm

But none of these are arms dealers. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264481/20111209/30-major-u-s-corporations-paid-lobby.htm

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

First of all you do not tell me what I like or hate,. ok.

Second what is your point? do you have one? or are you only going to argue every little thing, from every little angle, with nothing useful to say at all??

You claim that the government 'owns everything',. where are your facts? I see private individuals claiming to own most everything. You sound rather paranoid and talk of things that I do not observe from our common reality,. perhaps you are living in a mental construct that warps your logic.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

For "JPH" When I said you hate them I said that to mean they are the talking points on the left that hate them. In no way was i tell "you" what to hate or like. So get off you high horse and stop acting like i insulted you.

And yes i will argue on the little things because they DO matter. Your arguments are one sided and that means you seem to be a "Bigot"

The Government owns all the land. We can buy that land then we have to pay the taxes on the land forever and when we do not they take that land back. And with the last Ruling from the Supreme court they can even take the land and sell it to a Private contractor to build on because they might make the land more valuable and so they can get more taxes from it. Also I did not say they own everything but that is the direction Socialist/Communist want to go. You want the government to own everything.

[-] 0 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

Thank you. Great post

[-] 2 points by blackpanther6389 (39) from Peoria, IL 10 years ago

Background? Some kind of aptitude test. For those who qualify and are willing to do the most unhealthy jobs don't have to work as long and will switch off more than those who have an easier job to handle. But this is assuming we transition into something more sustainable because people are not gonna want to maintain something like that forever, those at the bottom will want change and we should give it to them. My two cents...

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 10 years ago

Very good, thank you.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

PBS reports another reduction in the unemployment rate as does cnbc. Reported rate drops to 8.2% - difference here in both case's Both sources freely state that the drop in rate does not reflect job growth, just more people not looking anymore and have fallen off of the unemployment roll.

[-] 1 points by Dontastu (4) 10 years ago

To save the world with 7 billions of jobs (aprox) there's already an example to look back to, it happened in 1932 in small town of Wörgl, Austria and the hereo was mayor Michael Unterguggenberger. See: The miracle of Wörgl "Wörgl expirience to save tha world" Thank you :)

[-] 1 points by ikki6 (11) 10 years ago

communism / socialism

or if you are a star trek fan, get that system....oh wait, that is socialism

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 10 years ago

But if your work is harder, shouldn't you get paid more?


[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 10 years ago

It should be through market economics. If the work is harder, I will pay more for it.

Graduated taxation should be used to equalize people economically. I can't believe there are billionaires, what are they going to do with all that money. They should be taxed to the point that they are only left with the reasonable amount they and their immediate generations would need.


[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 10 years ago

If there is open competition, then profits will tend to be equal to the hard work put in. Right now there are monopolies in every industry due to insufficient taxation which leads to these behemoths having enough money to influence politicians.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 10 years ago

Thinking in terms of job creation will get us nowhere. Jobs are becoming obsolete. We just need to change our system to account for that.



[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 10 years ago

That may could work during the transition. Have you heard of Marshall Brain? He had a similar idea.


[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 10 years ago

So what is your definition of a "job" that you make such a statement? You also state that you do not want a job. What you do is a job, whether you work for yourself or not.

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 10 years ago

We don't.

It's not a feasible system when you factor in exertion, volume, and many other values. There are various instances where money never enters the equation and it's just a cycle of favors.

This blanket won't work.


[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 10 years ago

I never stated that.

If everyone had a job and was paid exactly the same, why have a job? Unless sustainable living became outlawed, why clock in every day, repeating the same tasks for tokens, when you can cut away all of that nonsense and go straight for the goods you need to live well, by self-production or trade?

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 10 years ago

The cycle of favors probably has money as an underlying root cause, even if it's some sort of future expectation of. I guess it could be sexual though.




[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 10 years ago

You do the typing of outrageous ideas, you seem good at it.


[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

You can have a system of equal pay but that does not mean you can afford to buy anything. It sound good but it never seems to work. It may even start out good but it will fall apart. Why work hard when you can not lose a job and your pay is the same as everyone. After a while the productive people will slow down to the unproductive ones and the whole system will suffer and break. This is NOT a new ideal and has been used and failed every time.


[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 10 years ago

hey saw you mention my name down there first not a troll just a well informed man.

In the 1930's the government under FDR forced farmers to kill livestock and stop growing crops because it was driving the price down to low. This price was to low for most people since they could not make enough off of the product they were selling. Japan and Russia do this with the steel market every so often. Luck for us the government looks out for these things.

This is why you see plots of farm land not growing any crops its called the Agricultural Adjustment Act was a United States federal law of the New Deal era which restricted agricultural production by paying farmers subsidies not to plant part of their land (that is, to let a portion of their fields lie fallow) and to kill off excess livestock

This is where the saying of having to much of something is a bad thing comes in effect.

I leaned about all of this in my public high school in 11th grade. If i had a link to the book i would give it to you i remember it was right after we watch the Great Gatsby and before we went into the civil movements of the 60's





[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 10 years ago

Hey i dont know that guy

So are you going to comment on my item or are you just going to waste time by calling me something i'm not or are we going to have a serious talk i extended the branch to you

[-] 2 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Supply and demand. Too much can be as bad as to little. There is a balance to try and keep. It I make 100 bats a day but can only sell 10 a day after a bit the cost to make the item is more then it is worth and I lose a job. That is a balance.

A better position??? so when pay is the same the "coin of trade" becomes the perks of a better position? So in the end you have the same system we have now. The point of a better position means you get something others do not have.

"We must NOT allow that to happen." Must NOT? you going to fine them or put them into jail? There has to be an incentive to work hard. and you will never get a person to give their all if there is no incentive and punishment only goes so far. Also are we going to have privileged people to determined if you are NOT working hard?? I will say this as a pointer. SLAVERY. In the south the slave was seen as a lazy,slow and stupid person. That is because their only incentive was pain. They gave no more then they HAD to. Same problem with Russian and China before they started to change. I could be wrong but i think the saying was in Russia "that all are equal, but some are more equal." So i ask which equal will we be?


[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

equal pay seem like a nice system,. I had been thinking of a sort of intermediary system, or it could be just as good? All tax is based on income, anything over a limit,. 500,000 or a million say, is taxed 90%, the "Your Winning!" rate. This limits wealth concentration, and still leaves something for those that think people only strive for cash rewards, (something I know to be untrue, but whatever).

no tax on the first $25,000, 5% to 100,000, 9% to 300,000, 23% to the winning level,. what ever it is,. >500,000 at 90%

There would also be a guaranteed minimum income (some livable level $2500/month), that woulds eliminate homelessness and poverty. Everyone benefits from this, it just keeps the pumps primed as it where,. and it is not that far removed from what people are used to.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 10 years ago

Why would any sane person work hard enough to earn 500k and only keep 50k under your proposal? Your rates are illogical. A person making 100k keeps 90k while a person making 500k keeps 50k. That does not work! Do the math before presenting tax rates or any other proposals. This idea of limiting wealth is nonsense. If I have a great idea, why should I be penalized by those who are incapable of such thought. I should be free to earn what I can in a fair market. You are removing incentive. Bad idea! If you want wealth, go get it, no one is stopping you. Do not be envious of others who have success in a fair market. There are a lot of people who do things the right way. Why penalize them? Who would get all this taxed money anyway. Do you really trust the government to be wise with excess money? Didn't think so.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Like every progressive tax system I have ever seen, the taxes are cumulative;

if you make < 25,000 pay 0%. You keep it all. if you make 100,000 the first 25,000 is tax free, the next 75,000 is taxed at 5% etc.

So in fact, if you make 500,000 you keep; 25,000 + 68,250 + 182,000 + 154,000 = $429,250

"If I have a great idea, why should I be penalized by those who are incapable of such thought." How does the tax system penalize ideas??? This simply limits peoples ability to amass excessive wealth, you think one man working for a year is worth more than 500k? I don't see it.

Why are you guys always hung-up on envy, it has nothing to do with this. This is about fixing a broken method of human organisation, representative government is always corruptible and will therefor always be corrupted. The best way forward is to devise a better system with out the mechanisms of corruption built into them. a consensus based democracy.

"Do you really trust the government",. Not the current structure, I have no interest in funding foreign wars, and oil operations, none at all.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

2500/Moth is Livable here in Indiana, but it is livable in NY City?? Ah labor prices have gone up so have the price of goods. This is one reason that that we have lost so many jobs to china. It is not because they are better it is because we like our low cost goods. How do you solve that?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Pay people.

That was easy.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Pay them with what shooz? Monopoly money? You up the wages and price go up to match. What i got paid 10 years ago it not worth the same today. I would like more money who would not. I just like to know where we are going to get it?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

That is such an easy question I just can't see why so many people struggle over such a rudimentary problem. Here is where we get the money.

Yes, in economics, if you put more money into a system, the purchasing power of the dollar looses value. But if you reallocate those dollars already in the system, the purchasing power of the dollar is not effected.

Here is real world example. Say you own your own business and it begins to produce less and less. If you pay the employees more to produce more, you loose profit, same thing happens when more money is injected into our system. But, if the owner reappropriated the money, giving one class of employees more at the expense of another, then the product price does not change for the worst. If production is increased because those who actually do the work feel appreciated because of the raise, then profits increase, without the lost of purchasing power.

So the best way to fix the problem, is to tax the rich more, tax the middle class less, and pay the employees a living wage. All this would do is reappropriated the money already in the system, which would spur consumption and growth. But, no, we are in an economic holding pattern that will probably last until the FED has finished devaluing all the money in the system. It is kinda like we are biting off our nose to spite our face.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 10 years ago

You want to pay more to the "people actually doing the work" by taking it away from others who work less? Who would "they" be? Define your worker classes so we may understand. But I believe that you are assuming that the line worker works harder than the management worker. There is a reason management is paid more than the line worker: responsibility and accountability for others. Managing people well is actually quite difficult. In your post you state that giving more money to the workers would make them "feel appreciated". Workers mutually agree to the job they take on, agree to the wage and the work task. In doing this, the productivity level is also agreed to. So you are stating that current employees under achieve, thereby cheating their employer of the agreed job contract for the wage provided. So which is it?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

There you go with the academic response, which was probably manufactured in one of the many right wing think tanks that pollute this once vibrant nation, a response that has no validity in the real world. People take employment, not because they enjoy the job, but because they have to eat and pay the bills. As an employee looking to feed himself, I have no say in the negotiating process, especially when the unemployment rate is so high.

I would not say employees mutually agree to slack on the job, I just believe they are not go getters that want to help their company grow when their company cares more about the management team which sit on their dead asses collecting the exorbitantly high pay check.

For you to say what you say, you are ether a young person who has not been around the block, or a manager who has a over inflated ego.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 10 years ago

Sorry to disappoint you but I have been around the whole block, from union to management. Typical response about academic. It has absolute validity in the real world. You make choice very early on starting with education. If you choose poorly, then you are committed to limited options. How about addressing some personal responsibility in what your life turns out to be. Why not be someone who enjoys their job rather than be someone who hates to be there, yet blames others for their plight when they should look in the mirror first. There is nothing holding you back from getting better employment but yourself. I went back to school to gain better employment options. Your response about management shows that you have never been on that side to appreciate what they have to deal with. Sounds like your a bit envious of their success and not yours. I worked very hard to move up to better salary levels, going from a line person to top engineer in a top ten corporation. So don't assume that I am not knowledgable about these things.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

What can I say, I'm a sucker for a well written diatribe. I apologize for having made an assumption about your experiences. Although I respect your experiences, I am still beholden to mine, and it has been my experience that some of the people who have managed over me were not there because they were hard working individuals deserving of their position but were there because they were well liked by the owners. I believe that the old adage, "it is not what you know that distinguishes you in America, but, rather, it is who you know," holds more sway in America today.

I believe I spend a good portion of my time evaluating the decisions i have made in my life. Even though I have not made all the right decisions, I have never been a slouch when it comes to working. I'll say that the worst employment mistakes I make is that I get too frustrated with my employers' lack of reciprocation when it comes to compensation. If after two years I don't feel that I'm being compensated adequately, I was never bashful about finding a new employer. This could be a quality flaw on my part, and a reason why I feel that i have to take the work that is there, and not the work i wish i could perform. I could go back to collage, but I am skeptical about taking on more debt for a gamble of better employment.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

So run the numbers and tell me there is money in the system to do this. Mind you i have stock because I have a 401K and want returns on the money i have invested on companies.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

You need to keep in mind that if consumption does not increase your 401K won't be worth much after this runs its course.

Also, the money is in the pocket of the CEOs that increase you 401K at the expense of the rest of the American population, who are just lucky to break even.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

My 401K have not grown much in the last 8 years.

Look the same argument that says we pay the CEO this money is because we need the best is the same augment that the Collages are using to justify raising the tuition on students; to keep and get the very best teachers. It is the same system. Do you have a problem that schools keep costing more money that forces you to get a loan to pay for it that you may not be about to pay back? That is happen now and the students want to blame the backs for loaning them this money and no blame the schools? There is something total wrong here.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Now that I can agree with you one totally.

My grammar and spelling sucks but I am glade you understood me.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

At least we can agree that it is a self serving argument that really should be reevaluated by both audiences. no?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

It was working fine, until they demanded higher profits for WallStreet and then shipped all the jobs could to China and elsewhere.

Remember the 90s? All those union Car makers were so flush, they were spending billions buying other car makers.

Then came Bush, Then it all crashed.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

I see you have the brain damage many have on the left. WE have this little money maker that was working so well. It was the new internet and all the internet tech complies. It was a good time, but before Bush took office , Hell 2 years before that they where talking about a tech bubble because there was no real money holding up the system. A few got out and made millions, but when the stock holders ask where their money was that they invested and found that there was no money to be had the bubble broke. This happened before Bush took office. Many high paying jobs where lost and the system was cashing down. The projected money that Congress said we where going to take off the dept was based on the fact that there was to be no slow down in the economy and only growth. We may have pulled out of that be then 9/11 happened then everything went to shit.

But that does not work for your narration of BUSH hating and he cause the world to die.

By the way I remember hearing about a possible housing bubble about 2 year before it broke in 2008. But you do not know why we had the sub prime loans do you?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Brain Damage??

No, I'm not conse(R)vative, by any means.

But I can find it on Youtube.....:)


Stop trying to sick up for Bush, he's an ass, and so are his cohorts.

You can't lie to me about what I lived and watched.

You just can't do it, no matter how hard you try to blame it on something else..........Bush fuxed it all up.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

I work in the tech sector. I know what grew in the 90's and why. You many have lived back then but you must have been hitting the weed to hard to remember the facts. I like to understand the cause and the effect of things. I see the time line and see what started it. Blame Bush all you want the crash happened before he took office, Before he even got elected. It was not a fast crash it was a cancer of weakness in the system because of lies and misstated facts and cooked books to show you made more money then you did.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

What did say you were smoking???

You need to stop makin' things up.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

This is for you Shooz, Just a few of the of the so many links on the internet about the tech bubble pop you claim that President Bush caused. THE TRUTH HURTS BUT IT WILL SET YOU FREE.

http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp#axzz1rPmRxm5f http://www.vedantatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=670&Itemid=446 http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72804 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

The numbers are just spitballs,. it is the principle I am concerned with; an effective income cap at 500k or 1 million, that still nets you something, the 90% 'Winning' tax. Coupled with a guaranteed minimum income on the other end, that everyone gets, to keep artist, writers, retired people, the mentally ill, the sick, whoever can not or just does not what to work a day job, a bare minimum to live on. this eliminates poverty and homelessness while providing dignity to everyone, and creates a stabilizing effect on the economy.

This all goes along with ending the private money creation cartel and thus eliminating inflation. Private for-profit banks currently create the money supply and skim interest for doing so (creating even more debt),. they create the initial debt but not the required interest. that has to end and we can have a stable money based on value not debt.

As far as cheaper imports, the solution seems to be simple, people should by locally made stuff, with a preference for worker-owned organic production. It is culture more than regulations that are needed.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

???? guaranteed minimum to live on even if you do not want to work??? That right there will break the system alone. You only get dignity by doing, No one can give you dignity. It is the beyond stupid to give to those that do not want to do anything for themselves. I am sorry That type of person does not deserve anything.

The money system is broken because it is not based on gold anymore. It is based on a promise that we will pay what we owe other. A bank takes a risk when they loan out money they do not have. If that person pays the loan back then the system grew money that it did not have and the bank made money with the interest. You can not end inflation, It simply is a point to the value of the labor done or the goods made.

It is a simple solution that most do not want to do because it COST much more money. The only way this can work if to either add tariffs to the imports or to ban imports all together and force all to buy locally.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

No i am not a troll nor do i know any DB. I have only this one account.

So what do you do when you have 10 million wanting the same job like a CEO but there is only 1,000,000 to be had??? I think you equal pay system is doomed to fail. It is a pie in the sky concept that sound good but can not have any practical application of it. where is all the money to come from??? what are the price of good then? are you going to set them at a low cost so all can buy them? What if i want to buy a plane? will the equal pay system let be buy one? There are so many things i see wrong with this.


[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

So then there is a perk after all. That is the weakness in your system. So it is not equal after all. We already have that system. The best performers get the money and the less get the less.


[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Then you do not understand fully what you are saying. What you call the strength is the type of same system used today and you hate it. If everyone gets has the same pay and get the same items and live in the same homes there is still a power play going on. People in authority over time will see themselves has better because of their higher status and they will in time protect the position for those they deem to be the correct kind of person for that position.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 10 years ago

How can you prevent productive people to not slow down to the level of the lowest level of worker if the pay is the same. Why would I make 10 widgets an hour when the other guy is making 4 per hour? What is my incentive to work hard at anything. I would prefer to just play golf and get paid the same as everyone while doing the minimum. And you can't fire me for that! Your idea is wrong, Incentive is what breeds productivity.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 10 years ago

Nice to see others understand that simply logic.