If you really want to end Poverty, Focus on Labor Unions

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

This is how poverty hurts society.

The poor are every bit as human as anybody is, and they have a desire for entertainment and companionship and friendship too.

Here's the cost differences.

A Friendly Labrador - $1,800 for a Puppy.
A Dangerous Pit bull - Between FREE and $300 for a Puppy.

A Safe Gym - $500 for Membership per year.
A Dangerous Bar - $2 per beer, drunk after a 6 pack.

A Safe trip to a Ballgame with professional security guards and police presence- $ 150 for a ticket.
A Dangerous strip club with the biggest loser they can find for security- $30

A Wife - Thousands of dollars worth of Food, Utilities, Transportation, Support, Supplies and Gifts.
A Hooker - $ 50

A Safe Concert - $200
An Unsafe party in an abandoned building - Free

The Olive Garden - $50
The Outback Steakhouse - $50
Applebee's - $50

Mc Donalds - $10
An Unsafe "Sports Bar" - $20

Summer Camp - $3,000
The Bowling Alley - $30

6 Flags theme park - $400 total
A joint - $5


That's how Poverty hurts society.

So why don't the politicians focus more on Labor unions that have people paid more, and enforcing the laws against discrimination so that people can get jobs..
Instead of more taxes that cuts jobs and makes people even more poor ?

[Gim]

Sometimes, there are people lobbying for the opposite. That hurts society, especially the economy.

[Uxupox]

$500 yearly per gym? What the fuck? Mine costs less than half of that.

[Gim]

$500 yearly per gym? What the fuck? Mine costs less than half of that.

Mine's about 1/4.

[Saiwania]

To end poverty, you need an abundance of material resources, scarcity which is almost nonexistent, along with much fewer people. I don't think it is possible and won't be any time soon. Only thing that can be done, is for most of the world to uniformly advance towards more developed economies.

[Gim]

To end poverty, you need an abundance of material resources, scarcity which is almost nonexistent, along with much fewer people. I don't think it is possible and won't be any time soon. Only thing that can be done, is for most of the world to uniformly advance towards more developed economies.

After war is over in Syria and North Korea.

[Risottia]

Sometimes, there are people lobbying for the opposite. That hurts society, especially the economy.

The wealthiest parts of society have more political weight than the others, and it isn't it their immediate interest to make society more equal.

[Donut section]

Sometimes, there are people lobbying for the opposite. That hurts society, especially the economy.

The wealthiest parts of society have more political weight than the others, and it isn't it their immediate interest to make society more equal.

Society cannot be equal.
Stop trying you're making it worse.

[Gim]

The wealthiest parts of society have more political weight than the others, and it isn't it their immediate interest to make society more equal.

Society cannot be equal.
Stop trying you're making it worse.

Well, it's good for all of us, isn't it?

[Xelsis]

So why don't the politicians focus more on Labor unions that have people paid more, and enforcing the laws against discrimination so that people can get jobs..
Instead of more taxes that cuts jobs and makes people even more poor ?

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

[Risottia]

The wealthiest parts of society have more political weight than the others, and it isn't it their immediate interest to make society more equal.

Society cannot be equal.

1.Prove your claim.
2.Did I write just "equal" or did I write "more equal"? Eeeh, "reading and comprehension" is still one of the most undervalued skills...

Stop trying

3.Make me.

you're making it worse.

4.Prove your claim.

[Donut section]

Society cannot be equal.
Stop trying you're making it worse.

Well, it's good for all of us, isn't it?

No. Not really.

[Donut section]

Society cannot be equal.

1.Prove your claim.
2.Did I write just "equal" or did I write "more equal"? Eeeh, "reading and comprehension" is still one of the most undervalued skills...

Stop trying

3.Make me.

you're making it worse.

4.Prove your claim.

1. Is there any biological differences between people?
2. Equal at all
3. No soup for you
4. https://ourworldindata.org/taxation/

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

So why don't the politicians focus more on Labor unions that have people paid more, and enforcing the laws against discrimination so that people can get jobs..
Instead of more taxes that cuts jobs and makes people even more poor ?

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

What is better is if you live honestly and hire 25 workers for $50 an hour.
Anti Discrimination laws are there to get disabled people and minority races jobs that they're educationally qualified for.
If you're shaken up by people having rights, you shouldn't be a businessman.

[Risottia]

1. Is there any biological differences between people?

If you want to feign that you're unable to understand the context difference between "biological identity" and "social equality", fine, but then don't expect anyone to acknowledge any credibility to your arguments anymore.

2. Equal at all

Blatant lie.

3. No soup for you

Oh such evil threats.

4. https://ourworldindata.org/taxation/

This does not prove your claim that I'm making the world worse.

[Xelsis]

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

What is better is if you live honestly and hire 25 workers for $50 an hour.
Anti Discrimination laws are there to get disabled people and minority races jobs that they're educationally qualified for.
If you're shaken up by people having rights, you shouldn't be a businessman.

1. It'd also be nice if everyone would just stop doing crime forever and love everyone and disease and war ended and we all got free allergy-free puppies. Unfortunately, we live in something called the real world. So, then the question remains-five people at fifty, or twenty-five at ten?

2. Which still results in no net increase of jobs, since those same jobs are lost by non-disabled people and majority races.

I support the right of someone to work for whatever wage they choose. Do you?

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Bonuses should also be illegal to give, because it creates inequality.
There is no way to make bonuses equal unless you mandate that the added bonus becomes the new standard pay rate given out to every employee.

What a bonus boils down to, is extra cash given to the able bodied/minded MALE, who knows who won the 1957 World Series while drunk.
That's reality.

So Bonuses should be illegal.

[Outer Sparta]

This seems counterintuitive.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

What is better is if you live honestly and hire 25 workers for $50 an hour.
Anti Discrimination laws are there to get disabled people and minority races jobs that they're educationally qualified for.
If you're shaken up by people having rights, you shouldn't be a businessman.

1. It'd also be nice if everyone would just stop doing crime forever and love everyone and disease and war ended and we all got free allergy-free puppies. Unfortunately, we live in something called the real world. So, then the question remains-five people at fifty, or twenty-five at ten?

2. Which still results in no net increase of jobs, since those same jobs are lost by non-disabled people and majority races.

I support the right of someone to work for whatever wage they choose. Do you?

1. The lifestyle that introduces people to crime.... the weed for entertainment, the dangerous strip clubs and bars, and the booze, and the Bowling alley, and the parties in abandoned buildings, and the Unhealthy diet are ALL way less expensive that the better lifestyle that leads to disproportionately LESS Crime.
And what would be nice is if you shut the fuck up and pay your workers so that there would or could be less crime.

Anti Discrimination laws MANDATES that you hire a certain percentage of your employees from certain groups, disabled and minority races.

No I don't support the idea of you keeping people just as poor as you want them to be.
fuck you !

[Xelsis]

Bonuses should also be illegal to give, because it creates inequality.
There is no way to make bonuses equal unless you mandate that the added bonus becomes the new standard pay rate given out to every employee.

What a bonus boils down to, is extra cash given to the able bodied/minded MALE, who knows who won the 1957 World Series while drunk.
That's reality.

So Bonuses should be illegal.

So now it ought to be illegal to reward success?

Very well. I hope that you are happy with the corresponding increase in prices and decrease in wages.

1. It'd also be nice if everyone would just stop doing crime forever and love everyone and disease and war ended and we all got free allergy-free puppies. Unfortunately, we live in something called the real world. So, then the question remains-five people at fifty, or twenty-five at ten?

2. Which still results in no net increase of jobs, since those same jobs are lost by non-disabled people and majority races.

I support the right of someone to work for whatever wage they choose. Do you?

1. The lifestyle that introduces people to crime.... the weed for entertainment, the dangerous strip clubs and bars, and the booze, and the Bowling alley, and the parties in abandoned buildings, and the Unhealthy diet are ALL way less expensive that the better lifestyle that leads to disproportionately LESS Crime.
And what would be nice is if you shut the fuck up and pay your workers so that there would or could be less crime.

Anti Discrimination laws MANDATES that you hire a certain percentage of your employees from certain groups, disabled and minority races.

No I don't support the idea of you keeping people just as poor as you want them to be.
fuck you !

1. Are you going to claim that there are no wealthy criminals? Because that is patently absurd. Even so, you've ignored the question entirely. Let us, for the sake of the argument, assume you are correct in your assertion. Do you want to pay 5 people $50, and raise them out of crime, give them that high wage-and then have twenty people without money who will seemingly have to turn criminal-or do you want all twenty-five to be employed for $10/hour?

Setting aside the profanity, there is a limited amount of money. Do you want me to pay "my workers" more? Very well, I will-I'll just have to fire some of them. Is that what you want or not?


2. Yes, and in such quota systems, that means that the most qualified do not get the job if the company needs to hire a certain number of people from X demographic. No new jobs are created, they are merely shuffled from one group to another.

3. So then you do not believe in the workers' rights, then? I suppose by your own standard you ought not to be in business.

4. Come, now, that's hardly necessary.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Bonuses should also be illegal to give, because it creates inequality.
There is no way to make bonuses equal unless you mandate that the added bonus becomes the new standard pay rate given out to every employee.

What a bonus boils down to, is extra cash given to the able bodied/minded MALE, who knows who won the 1957 World Series while drunk.
That's reality.

So Bonuses should be illegal.

So now it ought to be illegal to reward success?

Very well. I hope that you are happy with the corresponding increase in prices and decrease in wages.

1. The lifestyle that introduces people to crime.... the weed for entertainment, the dangerous strip clubs and bars, and the booze, and the Bowling alley, and the parties in abandoned buildings, and the Unhealthy diet are ALL way less expensive that the better lifestyle that leads to disproportionately LESS Crime.
And what would be nice is if you shut the fuck up and pay your workers so that there would or could be less crime.

Anti Discrimination laws MANDATES that you hire a certain percentage of your employees from certain groups, disabled and minority races.

No I don't support the idea of you keeping people just as poor as you want them to be.
fuck you !

1. Are you going to claim that there are no wealthy criminals? Because that is patently absurd. Even so, you've ignored the question entirely. Let us, for the sake of the argument, assume you are correct in your assertion. Do you want to pay 5 people $50, and raise them out of crime, give them that high wage-and then have twenty people without money who will seemingly have to turn criminal-or do you want all twenty-five to be employed for $10/hour?

Setting aside the profanity, there is a limited amount of money. Do you want me to pay "my workers" more? Very well, I will-I'll just have to fire some of them. Is that what you want or not?


2. Yes, and in such quota systems, that means that the most qualified do not get the job if the company needs to hire a certain number of people from X demographic. No new jobs are created, they are merely shuffled from one group to another.

3. So then you do not believe in the workers' rights, then? I suppose by your own standard you ought not to be in business.

4. Come, now, that's hardly necessary.

First of all, qualified is qualified, there is no more or less qualified.
if you want to be an agent of economic activity in the community is our job to make you do exactly that.
Firing union workers over having to pay them more, is illegal in Non- Right to work states, which ALL states should be Non Right to Work.

[Xelsis]

So now it ought to be illegal to reward success?

Very well. I hope that you are happy with the corresponding increase in prices and decrease in wages.



1. Are you going to claim that there are no wealthy criminals? Because that is patently absurd. Even so, you've ignored the question entirely. Let us, for the sake of the argument, assume you are correct in your assertion. Do you want to pay 5 people $50, and raise them out of crime, give them that high wage-and then have twenty people without money who will seemingly have to turn criminal-or do you want all twenty-five to be employed for $10/hour?

Setting aside the profanity, there is a limited amount of money. Do you want me to pay "my workers" more? Very well, I will-I'll just have to fire some of them. Is that what you want or not?


2. Yes, and in such quota systems, that means that the most qualified do not get the job if the company needs to hire a certain number of people from X demographic. No new jobs are created, they are merely shuffled from one group to another.

3. So then you do not believe in the workers' rights, then? I suppose by your own standard you ought not to be in business.

4. Come, now, that's hardly necessary.

First of all, qualified is qualified, there is no more or less qualified.
if you want to be an agent of economic activity in the community is our job to make you do exactly that.

As long as both know how to play baseball, you would say that Derek Jeter is no more qualified a player than a shortstop in Little League?

Your job to make me fire my workers in exchange for paying a certain percentage of them more? It's funny, I would have thought that that sort of inequality wasn't a very leftist value.

Firing union workers over having to pay them more, is illegal in Non- Right to work states, which ALL states should be Non Right to Work.

Oh, I see, I should just go out of business instead, so nobody gets paid anything at all. Yeah, that makes sense.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

First of all, qualified is qualified, there is no more or less qualified.
if you want to be an agent of economic activity in the community is our job to make you do exactly that.

As long as both know how to play baseball, you would say that Derek Jeter is no more qualified a player than a shortstop in Little League?

Your job to make me fire my workers in exchange for paying a certain percentage of them more? It's funny, I would have thought that that sort of inequality wasn't a very leftist value.

Its my job to make you pay the workers more, not fire ANY.... its my job to make you hire MORE workers, for MORE money EACH, and if you don't like it, don't be in business at all.
Fire union workers and what happens is you get your business shut down by the state, and they go and get new Jobs under leadership that isn't an asshole... and you get to know that you never will see a business license again.


Business isn't sports.
In business, if you get the job done right, you got it done period.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

First of all, qualified is qualified, there is no more or less qualified.
if you want to be an agent of economic activity in the community is our job to make you do exactly that.

As long as both know how to play baseball, you would say that Derek Jeter is no more qualified a player than a shortstop in Little League?

Your job to make me fire my workers in exchange for paying a certain percentage of them more? It's funny, I would have thought that that sort of inequality wasn't a very leftist value.

Firing union workers over having to pay them more, is illegal in Non- Right to work states, which ALL states should be Non Right to Work.

Oh, I see, I should just go out of business instead, so nobody gets paid anything at all. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes society is better off without ASSHOLES in charge of Businesses.

[Xelsis]

As long as both know how to play baseball, you would say that Derek Jeter is no more qualified a player than a shortstop in Little League?

Your job to make me fire my workers in exchange for paying a certain percentage of them more? It's funny, I would have thought that that sort of inequality wasn't a very leftist value.

Its my job to make you pay the workers more, not fire ANY.... its my job to make you hire MORE workers, for MORE money EACH, and if you don't like it, don't be in business at all.

Then people won't be. They will go out of business, and no one is being paid anything at all.

That's your objective?

Fire union workers and what happens is you get your business shut down by the state, and they go and get new Jobs under leadership that isn't an asshole... and you get to know that you never will see a business license again.

Oh, it is your objective. "Hah! Pay us more or pay us nothing! Oh, wait, you're paying us nothing."

If you really want to end poverty, making people unemployed is generally a bad way to do it.

Business isn't sports.
In business, if you get the job done right, you got it done period.

1. Sports is a business.
2. So no salesman is better at making sales than any other? No writer better at writing? No accountant faster at running the numbers? Are you really making the claim that no-one is more skilled than anyone else at anything?