MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

---

I bet the Russians made me conservative.

fyi: that's not what a reactionary is, you should learn the meaning of things before you use them. What you're describing is an anarchist. Yeah, I'm not one of those.

---

From what I've learned on this board, anarchists support very strong government but only when they don't get the results they want organically

BearGreg said:

---

Personal attacks are not allowed. I deleted multiple posts for that reason. Clean it up or go elsewhere.

---

Crazy.

This thread is pretty tame.

dajo9 said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Personal attacks are not allowed. I deleted multiple posts for that reason. Clean it up or go elsewhere.

---

Crazy.

This thread is pretty tame.

---

It's because no one has called you a LWNJ yet.

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform. It's why they always call everyone who disagrees w them a Nazi. Intellectual inferior people who just shot names like a 5th grader.

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to heathcare?

---

Yes

---

How does he plan on people who aren't employed affording health care?

---

https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/coverage/

Quote:

---

Medicaid. Medicaid provides coverage to millions of Americans with limited incomes or disabilities. Many states have expanded Medicaid to cover all people below certain income levels. Learn more about Medicaid and how to apply.

---

The system is not a good system. It is a patchwork of what special interests will accept. Biden wants to improve the current system by offering a Medicare option. Individuals in some states don't have access to Medicaid because the Constitution (backed by the Supreme Court) places such a high value on states rights, the Federal government was blocked from imposing Medicaid on states (stupid, right?).

I would prefer to go farther than what Biden has suggested but the point is moot. Nothing will happen without the Senate and even though this a very liberal Senate by historical standards, it is still not enough to clear the required undemocratic hurdles in the Senate. As long as Appalachia has equal power to California and New England combined this will be a problem.

---

The point is not moot. What Biden wants to do does not address the issue of how people without jobs will get the health care they need.

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to heathcare?

---

Yes

---

How does he plan on people who aren't employed affording health care?

---

https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/coverage/

Quote:

---

Medicaid. Medicaid provides coverage to millions of Americans with limited incomes or disabilities. Many states have expanded Medicaid to cover all people below certain income levels. Learn more about Medicaid and how to apply.

---

The system is not a good system. It is a patchwork of what special interests will accept. Biden wants to improve the current system by offering a Medicare option. Individuals in some states don't have access to Medicaid because the Constitution (backed by the Supreme Court) places such a high value on states rights, the Federal government was blocked from imposing Medicaid on states (stupid, right?).

I would prefer to go farther than what Biden has suggested but the point is moot. Nothing will happen without the Senate and even though this a very liberal Senate by historical standards, it is still not enough to clear the required undemocratic hurdles in the Senate. As long as Appalachia has equal power to California and New England combined this will be a problem.

---

The point is not moot. What Biden wants to do does not address the issue of how people without jobs will get the health care they need.

---

People in states that don't provide Medicaid expansion as per the ACA need to work at the state level. States rights, my dude.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

Maybe. Let's see how $15 works out first.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

---

I bet the Russians made me conservative.

fyi: that's not what a reactionary is, you should learn the meaning of things before you use them. What you're describing is an anarchist. Yeah, I'm not one of those.

---

Quote:

---

In political science, a reactionary or reactionist is a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent in contemporary society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary#cite_note-1][1][/url] The word reactionary is often used in the context of the leftright political spectrum, and is one tradition in right-wing politics. In popular usage, it is commonly used to refer to a highly traditional position, one opposed to social or political change.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary#cite_note-3][3][/url] However, according to political theorist Mark Lilla, a reactionary yearns to overturn a present condition of perceived decadence and recover an idealized past. Such reactionary individuals and policies favour social transformation, in contrast to conservative individuals or policies that seek incremental change or to preserve what exists in the present

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

---

Me too. That, in a nutshell, was my PEIS major. Would add that we need to do more to help those who, for whatever reason, arrive at age 18 never having developed that "delayed gratification" ethic. Oftentimes, they just don't know any better, through no fault of their own. We all bear some responsibility for them, to some extent.

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

---

Me too. That, in a nutshell, was my PEIS major. Would add that we need to do more to help those who, for whatever reason, arrive at age 18 never having developed that "delayed gratification" ethic. Oftentimes, they just don't know any better, through no fault of their own. We all bear some responsibility for them, to some extent.

---

I assume you are familiar with the jelly bean experiment. They put a bowl with a jelly bean in front of small children and told them that they are going to leave the room and if they don't eat the jelly bean before they get back, they will get a whole bunch of jelly beans. Then they timed how long the kid would wait before eating the jelly bean. Some waited as long as it took. Some ate the jelly bean before the adult could leave the table.

When they checked on the subjects years later (at least in one study), they found a positive correlation between SAT scores and how long the kid had waited before eating the jelly bean. In various studies, later success has been predictable based on how long a child was able to wait.

So the moral of the story is try this on your small children and if they eat the candy right away you can give up on them early and focus your attention on their siblings.

edit: That was a joke, son.

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform. It's why they always call everyone who disagrees w them a Nazi. Intellectual inferior people who just shot names like a 5th grader.

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

---

Me too. That, in a nutshell, was my PEIS major. Would add that we need to do more to help those who, for whatever reason, arrive at age 18 never having developed that "delayed gratification" ethic. Oftentimes, they just don't know any better, through no fault of their own. We all bear some responsibility for them, to some extent.

---

I would suggest that parents have to take some responsibility. We were by all measures lower middle class, but my parents embedded into my thinking from an early age that they want a better life for my brother and me and that they will sacrifice whatever they needed to so that we could get a college education. Not going to college was not an option. We still made some poor decisions, like my brother going to Stanford (on a scholarship at least), but it was never an option not to go to college.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

College is not appropriate for lots of people. People are born with a wide variety of mental aptitudes and strenghts and weaknesses. ADHD, Aspergers, autism, and other things that people can function with, but which can make the college path difficult are not just parenting failures or losers. As a society we have to be flexible in our approach. Variety is the spice of life.

That sounds reasonable but I'm sure there must have been good reasons for a federal wage, or maybe not.

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Don't forget and defending our democracy from those who seek to destroy it. Admittedly that has not always needed to be a part of the domestic platform.

If HankyPhD cared to understand the democrat party platform rather than continuing to fail as a troll, he would see that, unlike the Republican party which literally failed to even create a 2020 platform, the democrats have policy objectives. But pathetic trolling is Hanky's entire policy platform, so to speak and he's taken on the main republican governing performative art - projection.

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

SFBear92 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone.

---

Putting aside the disenfranchisement attempt, we ought to be able to vote using cell phones. If we can do financial transactions with them, we can certainly vote with them and it will greatly speed up the counting of the votes. We can create an audit trail so that a person has a copy of their vote that can be used later to audit the accuracy of the voting process.

And it would put a huge wrench into attempted disenfranchisement.

---

I agree

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

---

Me too. That, in a nutshell, was my PEIS major. Would add that we need to do more to help those who, for whatever reason, arrive at age 18 never having developed that "delayed gratification" ethic. Oftentimes, they just don't know any better, through no fault of their own. We all bear some responsibility for them, to some extent.

---

I would suggest that parents have to take some responsibility. We were by all measures lower middle class, but my parents embedded into my thinking from an early age that they want a better life for my brother and me and that they will sacrifice whatever they needed to so that we could get a college education. Not going to college was not an option. We still made some poor decisions, like my brother going to Stanford (on a scholarship at least), but it was never an option not to go to college.

---

And this is also where class expectations come into play. My father was the first in my family to go to college. My grandfather on my mother's side was the first (and my Mom didn't graduate college because her parents thought college for girls was to catch a husband and they weren't paying for that) I have the highest level of degree on both sides of my family. But my father was a teacher. I would say we were straight up middle middle class, living in an upper middle class area that my parents had to massively stretch financially to buy into.

I would not say that failing to go to college was not an option, as in my parents drilled it into me that "you better go to college." Not going to college was not fathomable. College followed 12th grade like 12th grade followed 11th. Not going to college was not a reality in my universe. You had to really want to do something else to have it even enter your mind (and of course if something else gave you that level of passion, it was probably a good alternative)

BearForce2 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Do you have links for the renegade postal chief and the cell phone voting scandal in PA?

---

no I don't but it was widely broadcast in the weeks leading up to the election. You're good at finding things when you want to so go find it yourself.

heartofthebear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Do you have links for the renegade postal chief and the cell phone voting scandal in PA?

---

no I don't but it was widely broadcast in the weeks leading up to the election. You're good at finding things when you want to so go find it yourself.

---

OK will do, thanks.

Orange you glad they fortified the election?

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

I am someone who believes in the separation of political power into federal, state, and local buckets as long as none infringe on individual rights and I think that is unfortunately given a bad name by virtue of both pro-slavery and segregationist interests using states rights as an argument in support of them (which fail, IMO). I tend to agree in this case. The fact is that the right minimum wage for San Francisco or Manhattan is not the right minimum wage for many places where the cost of living is not nearly as high. I would argue for a higher minimum wage in my state, but I agree that the state is better able to set an appropriately tailored level.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Wow you think the republicans were helped!! We must stop that..let's get a signature verification for all 50 states and see. We can't let those dastardly republicans get more votes than they deserve!!

Also here's some kick azz music:

---

I didn't say I thought they were helped. I said that it is at least as likely that they were helped than hurt. Whatever issues you have with the way voting is done, historically it has not been directed against Republicans as a rule. And each state gets to make their own rules about it so good luck with the 50 states thing.

calbear93 said:

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

Delicate balance indeed. How do you decide between pulling Americans out of poverty vs. killing jobs?

BearForce2 said:

---

That sounds reasonable but I'm sure there must have been good reasons for a federal wage, or maybe not.

---

I think it is necessary only to the extent that some states may have extremist government that are not otherwise bothered by something close to slave labor. If there are enough people without jobs who need just anything and there isn't some welfare system that will not only incentivize work but also incentivize employers to pay more than slave labor, without federal minimum wage, an unscrupulous state government could have no protection available against paying too little. However, considering that states can always go above the federal level (as can cities), the federal government should not take a hammer when a scalpel is a better tool.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

---

You should have just read my next sentence and saved us all a waste of time

BearForce2 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

Delicate balance indeed. How do you decide between pulling Americans out of poverty vs. killing jobs?

---

I don't know. It is a study that needs to be done based on cost of living in a neighborhood where someone who is working full 40 hours should be able to afford housing and food. If it is not enough, then employers are paying too little and consumers are getting too big of a pricing benefit on the backs of unskilled labor.

But $15 may be less than what is needed in SF but way more than what is needed in most places in Alabama.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

---

You should have just read my next sentence and saved us all a waste of time

---

To be fair, most of us don't get to end of your posts and most of your posts are a waste of our time. But you still failed to counter your clearly false statement that higher minimum wage grow jobs. (Just poking you because you are such an unlikable person - I think you know that already since you are an adult and your personality has already been set for awhile - I can't be the only one who has told you that).