Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350343 > unrolled thread

Appil sales plummet 30%

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000
    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 09:38 -0700
      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:47 +0000
        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:45 -0400
        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 22:05 +0100
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 11:17 +0100
    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:20 -0700
      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 17:36 +0000
        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 10:38 -0700
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:47 -0700
            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:02 +0000
              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:14 -0700
                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 +0000
                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:45 -0700
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:49 -0700
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:02 +0000
                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 14:09 -0700
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:31 +0000
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 14:42 -0700
                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:11 +0000
                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:19 -0700
                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:27 +0000
                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:33 -0700
                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 19:29 -0700
                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 16:23 +0100
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:06 -0700
                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:24 -0400
              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:16 -0700
                Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-16 17:08 -0400
                  Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-16 20:00 -0700
                    Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-19 20:00 +0000
              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:02 -0400
                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-16 16:03 -0700
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400
                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:53 -0700
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 17:00 -0400
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 14:25 -0700
                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 21:50 +0000
                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 15:47 -0700
                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 16:31 -0700
                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:01 +0000
                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:22 -0700
                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:40 +0000
                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:54 -0700
                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:46 +0000
                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:13 -0700
                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:39 +0000
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:50 -0700
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:09 +0000
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:26 -0700
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:41 -0400
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:40 -0700
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:31 -0400
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0700
                                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:21 -0700
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:39 -0400
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:46 -0700
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:36 -0400
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:07 -0700
                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:27 -0700
                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:50 +0000
                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 18:08 -0700
                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:51 +0000
                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:09 -0700
                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:22 +0200
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:47 -0700
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:58 +0200
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:22 -0700
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:26 +0200
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:43 -0700
                                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:50 +0200
                                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:27 -0700
                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:24 +0000
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:34 +0200
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:45 +0000
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:49 +0200
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:30 -0700
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:35 +0200
                                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:47 -0700
                                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:55 +0200
                                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:26 -0700
                                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:21 -0400
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 22:38 -0400
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:46 +0000
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:42 -0400
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:39 -0700
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:55 +0000
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:20 -0700
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:50 +0000
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:29 -0700
                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:33 -0400
                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:53 -0700
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:27 -0700
                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:39 -0400
                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 10:58 -0700
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:12 -0700
                                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
                                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:55 -0700
                                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:39 -0400
                                                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:53 -0700
                                                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:38 -0400
                                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:31 -0700
                                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:36 -0700
                                                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:34 -0700
                                                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 12:52 -0400
                                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:56 -0700
                                                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 14:14 -0700
                                            Re: Am I poorer if you're richer ?  No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 01:55 -0400
                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 18:28 -0700
                                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:53 +0000
                                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:07 -0700
                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:25 -0400
                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 12:15 -0700
                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:45 -0400
                                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:59 -0700
                                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:44 -0400
                                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:18 -0700
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 08:44 -0700
                  Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0400
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 07:19 -0700
                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 12:03 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 09:12 -0700
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 14:00 -0400
                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:53 -0400
                            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-17 20:07 +0000
                              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 19:56 -0400
                                Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:28 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 12:57 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:14 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 08:59 -0500
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 10:37 -0400
                      Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:06 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 10:29 -0700
                          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 16:57 -0400
                        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:51 -0700
                    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:59 -0700
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:47 -0400
        Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:58 -0700
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:16 +0000
            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:31 -0700
            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:43 -0700
              Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:52 -0700
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:00 -0400
            Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
          Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 09:42 +0100
      Re: Countless SMALL vendors write to the Microsoft Standard. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
    Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#350551

On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well
>>>> and in a very digestible form:
>>>> 
>>>>     <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>,
>>> 
>>> What is it that you think that graph shows?
>> 
>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing.
>> 
> 
> I'm not confused by it.  You are.  But then, communists are easily
> confused.
> 
>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over
>>> $200K in 2014 dollars.  And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made
>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars.  And across the board the number of people
>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of
>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount.  All of that
>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation.
>> 
>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars.
>> 
> 
> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of
> adults.  0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income.
> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K.  What you see decreasing
> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage
> decreases in those lower income brackets.
> 
>> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is
>> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class
>> becomes more and more productive.
>> 
> 
> It doesn't show that at all.  The x-axis is income.  The y-axis is
> percentage of households.  It shows that over time the percentage
> of households in higher income brackets has increased, with the most
> marked increase in the percent of households making over $200K, while
> the percentage of households in lower income brackets has decreased.
> 
> The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the
> overall graph  That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the
> lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases
> in percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income"
> group moving toward higher incomes.
> 
> 
Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a
couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing:

<http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq>
    -----
    The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground
    No longer the majority and falling behind financially
    ...
    And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially
    in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households
    was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market
    crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth
    (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.
    ...
    The middle class shrinks

    Share of adults living in middle-income households is fallingThe
    hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for
    more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a
    smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at
    the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as
    having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.

    Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American
    adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in
    1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier
    rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in
    the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7
    percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double
    the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom.
    -----


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350554

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well
>>>>> and in a very digestible form:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>,
>>>> 
>>>> What is it that you think that graph shows?
>>> 
>>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not confused by it.  You are.  But then, communists are easily
>> confused.
>> 
>>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over
>>>> $200K in 2014 dollars.  And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made
>>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars.  And across the board the number of people
>>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of
>>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount.  All of that
>>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation.
>>> 
>>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of
>> adults.  0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income.
>> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K.  What you see decreasing
>> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage
>> decreases in those lower income brackets.
>> 
>>> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is
>>> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class
>>> becomes more and more productive.
>>> 
>> 
>> It doesn't show that at all.  The x-axis is income.  The y-axis is
>> percentage of households.  It shows that over time the percentage
>> of households in higher income brackets has increased, with the most
>> marked increase in the percent of households making over $200K, while
>> the percentage of households in lower income brackets has decreased.
>> 
>> The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the
>> overall graph  That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the
>> lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases
>> in percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income"
>> group moving toward higher incomes.
>> 
>> 
> Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a
> couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing:
> 
> <http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq>
>     -----
>     The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground
>     No longer the majority and falling behind financially
>     ...
>     And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially
>     in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households
>     was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market
>     crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth
>     (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.
>     ...
>     The middle class shrinks
> 
>     Share of adults living in middle-income households is fallingThe
>     hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for
>     more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a
>     smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at
>     the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as
>     having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.
> 
>     Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American
>     adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in
>     1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier
>     rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in
>     the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7
>     percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double
>     the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom.
>     -----

Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above
the "middle class" level?  Or that the very top income group has had a
greater increase in population than did the very lowest?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350556

On 4/17/16, 5:50 PM, in article hjgie802fa.kdi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>> Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a
>> couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing:
>> 
>> <http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq>
>>     -----
>>     The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground
>>     No longer the majority and falling behind financially
>>     ...
>>     And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially
>>     in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households
>>     was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market
>>     crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth
>>     (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.
>>     ...
>>     The middle class shrinks
>> 
>>     Share of adults living in middle-income households is falling The
>>     hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for
>>     more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a
>>     smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at
>>     the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as
>>     having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.
>> 
>>     Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American
>>     adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in
>>     1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier
>>     rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in
>>     the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7
>>     percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double
>>     the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom.
>>     -----
> 
> Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above
> the "middle class" level?  Or that the very top income group has had a
> greater increase in population than did the very lowest?

It is bad that there are more people at the lower levels and, as shown in
other information you snipped, that the tie between productivity and reward
has become weaker. 

Ideally you would have a very close tie between productivity and financial
reward, with the exception of the truly needy whom we should help.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350562

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/16, 5:50 PM, in article hjgie802fa.kdi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a
>>> couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing:
>>> 
>>> <http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq>
>>>     -----
>>>     The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground
>>>     No longer the majority and falling behind financially
>>>     ...
>>>     And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially
>>>     in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households
>>>     was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market
>>>     crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth
>>>     (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.
>>>     ...
>>>     The middle class shrinks
>>> 
>>>     Share of adults living in middle-income households is falling The
>>>     hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for
>>>     more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a
>>>     smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at
>>>     the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as
>>>     having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.
>>> 
>>>     Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American
>>>     adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in
>>>     1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier
>>>     rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in
>>>     the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7
>>>     percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double
>>>     the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom.
>>>     -----
>> 
>> Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above
>> the "middle class" level?  Or that the very top income group has had a
>> greater increase in population than did the very lowest?
> 
> It is bad that there are more people at the lower levels

There aren't.  The increases were at the higher income levels.  Not the
"lower."  Only at the *very* bottom was there an increase.  All other
lower income levels showed a drop in population, and *all* higher
income levels showed increases in population.  I don't know what flavor
of berntard koolaid you've been drinking, but you really need to chase
it with a math class or two.


> and, as shown in
> other information you snipped, that the tie between productivity and reward
> has become weaker. 
> 
> Ideally you would have a very close tie between productivity and financial
> reward, with the exception of the truly needy whom we should help.
 
Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion.
Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350566

On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>> Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above
>>> the "middle class" level?  Or that the very top income group has had a
>>> greater increase in population than did the very lowest?
>> 
>> It is bad that there are more people at the lower levels
> 
> There aren't. 

OK, no moving images this time... so maybe this will help you:
<http://goo.gl/6cMDxC>

The fact the upper class is growing is not a concern of mine (though HOW it
is growing is... and where the wealth of the country is going is). But the
point here is that the middle class is getting squeezed out and the lower
class is growing.

That is not a good thing.

Increased income inequality is a bad thing for an economy and a society. It
leads to more crime, more unrest, more violence, and less opportunity.

But the bigger issue, though related, is in the image you snipped: the
connection between productivity and reward is reducing. That is an even
bigger problem.

Some key things we need to do:

* Stop (or at least greatly reduce) socializing the costs and risks of the
rich. 
* Invest in the infrastructure / future of the country - education, health
care, transportation, data, energy.
* Move to green energy when and how we can... as quickly as possible

Other things I listed which you ignored and snipped. :)

> The increases were at the higher income levels.  Not the "lower."  Only at the
> *very* bottom was there an increase.  All other lower income levels showed a
> drop in population, and *all* higher income levels showed increases in
> population.  I don't know what flavor of berntard koolaid you've been
> drinking, but you really need to chase it with a math class or two.
> 
> 
>> and, as shown in
>> other information you snipped, that the tie between productivity and reward
>> has become weaker.
>> 
>> Ideally you would have a very close tie between productivity and financial
>> reward, with the exception of the truly needy whom we should help.
>  
> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion.

A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical
precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the
South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was
not respected. 

> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.

Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350570

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:09:42 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >  
> > Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with
> > expansion.  
> 
> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical
> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery.
> Yeah, the South did economically well off the backs of the poor...
> but equality was not respected. 

Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits. 

> 
> > Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.  
> 
> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason.

Minimum wage is something that cannot be judged properly.
Either it is too low or too high. If it is too low, worker will get less
then what would be income ordinarily. If it is too high, he wouldn't
get a job...

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350581

On 4/17/16, 7:22 PM, in article 20160418042240.5143b068@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:09:42 -0700
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>>>  
>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with
>>> expansion.  
>> 
>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical
>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery.
>> Yeah, the South did economically well off the backs of the poor...
>> but equality was not respected.
> 
> Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.

For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no means of
doing that. And it does not have any focus on human rights.

>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.
>> 
>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason.
> 
> Minimum wage is something that cannot be judged properly.

There is no perfect number, sure... just like there is no perfect number to
assign to driving age or to how tall you have to be to go on a carnival ride
or many other things. But we make decent approximations.

> Either it is too low or too high. If it is too low, worker will get less
> then what would be income ordinarily.

Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!

> If it is too high, he wouldn't get a job...

If you take it to an extreme and say the min. wage should be $1000 / hour
you end up with absurdity.

Here is an argument for much higher than $15:
<http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/>.

Basically it comes down to we have more technology and are more productive
so we SHOULD be making more than we did in the past... which translates to
having a better standard of living. I think there are some weaknesses in the
argument, but overall think the basic premise makes sense. Set the min. wage
to a good level and then have it set to change with inflation. Over time we
can change that amount if we find it to be too high or too low... but the
issue will then be more clear.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350585

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:47:28 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/16, 7:22 PM, in article 20160418042240.5143b068@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:09:42 -0700
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >   
> >>>  
> >>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with
> >>> expansion.    
> >> 
> >> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all
> >> historical precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally,
> >> slavery. Yeah, the South did economically well off the backs of
> >> the poor... but equality was not respected.  
> > 
> > Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.  
> 
> For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no
> means of doing that. And it does not have any focus on human rights.

What is society?

> 
> >>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.  
> >> 
> >> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic
> >> reason.  
> > 
> > Minimum wage is something that cannot be judged properly.  
> 
> There is no perfect number, sure... just like there is no perfect
> number to assign to driving age or to how tall you have to be to go
> on a carnival ride or many other things. But we make decent
> approximations.
> 
> > Either it is too low or too high. If it is too low, worker will get
> > less then what would be income ordinarily.  
> 
> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!

Then why minimum wage in the first place?

> 
> > If it is too high, he wouldn't get a job...  
> 
> If you take it to an extreme and say the min. wage should be $1000 /
> hour you end up with absurdity.

In medias res!

> 
> Here is an argument for much higher than $15:
> <http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/>.
> 
> Basically it comes down to we have more technology and are more
> productive so we SHOULD be making more than we did in the past...
> which translates to having a better standard of living. I think there
> are some weaknesses in the argument, but overall think the basic
> premise makes sense. Set the min. wage to a good level and then have
> it set to change with inflation. Over time we can change that amount
> if we find it to be too high or too low... but the issue will then be
> more clear.

It's not clear at all who would pay that.

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350589

On 4/17/16, 7:58 PM, in article 20160418045855.3b789624@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:47:28 -0700
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/17/16, 7:22 PM, in article 20160418042240.5143b068@maxa-pc,
>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:09:42 -0700
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>>  
>>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with
>>>>> expansion.   
>>>> 
>>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all
>>>> historical precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally,
>>>> slavery. Yeah, the South did economically well off the backs of
>>>> the poor... but equality was not respected.
>>> 
>>> Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.
>> 
>> For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no
>> means of doing that. And it does not have any focus on human rights.
> 
> What is society?

Really? I mean, come on... if you cannot figure out the meaning of basic
words you clearly are in over your head.

Without over-analyzing I will accept the definition that comes up from a
basic Google search: "the aggregate of people living together in a more or
less ordered community"

>>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.
>>>> 
>>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic
>>>> reason.  
>>> 
>>> Minimum wage is something that cannot be judged properly.
>> 
>> There is no perfect number, sure... just like there is no perfect
>> number to assign to driving age or to how tall you have to be to go
>> on a carnival ride or many other things. But we make decent
>> approximations.
>> 
>>> Either it is too low or too high. If it is too low, worker will get
>>> less then what would be income ordinarily.
>> 
>> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!
> 
> Then why minimum wage in the first place?

Human rights.
 
>>> If it is too high, he wouldn't get a job...
>> 
>> If you take it to an extreme and say the min. wage should be $1000 /
>> hour you end up with absurdity.
> 
> In medias res!
> 
>> 
>> Here is an argument for much higher than $15:
>> <http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/>.
>> 
>> Basically it comes down to we have more technology and are more
>> productive so we SHOULD be making more than we did in the past...
>> which translates to having a better standard of living. I think there
>> are some weaknesses in the argument, but overall think the basic
>> premise makes sense. Set the min. wage to a good level and then have
>> it set to change with inflation. Over time we can change that amount
>> if we find it to be too high or too low... but the issue will then be
>> more clear.
> 
> It's not clear at all who would pay that.

People who want labor should (in general) have to pay for it and not have
the cost be socialized by the government. This means having a living wage...
or giving up on human rights.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350591

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:22:34 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/16, 7:58 PM, in article 20160418045855.3b789624@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:47:28 -0700
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 4/17/16, 7:22 PM, in article 20160418042240.5143b068@maxa-pc,
> >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >>   
> >>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:09:42 -0700
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with
> >>>>> expansion.     
> >>>> 
> >>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all
> >>>> historical precedence and reason. The extreme of it is,
> >>>> literally, slavery. Yeah, the South did economically well off
> >>>> the backs of the poor... but equality was not respected.  
> >>> 
> >>> Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.  
> >> 
> >> For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no
> >> means of doing that. And it does not have any focus on human
> >> rights.  
> > 
> > What is society?  
> 
> Really? I mean, come on... if you cannot figure out the meaning of
> basic words you clearly are in over your head.
> 
> Without over-analyzing I will accept the definition that comes up
> from a basic Google search: "the aggregate of people living together
> in a more or less ordered community"

So it's aggregate of individuals.... each individual strives to
maximize profit...

> 
> >>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.  
> >>>> 
> >>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic
> >>>> reason.    
> >>> 
> >>> Minimum wage is something that cannot be judged properly.  
> >> 
> >> There is no perfect number, sure... just like there is no perfect
> >> number to assign to driving age or to how tall you have to be to go
> >> on a carnival ride or many other things. But we make decent
> >> approximations.
> >>   
> >>> Either it is too low or too high. If it is too low, worker will
> >>> get less then what would be income ordinarily.  
> >> 
> >> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!  
> > 
> > Then why minimum wage in the first place?  
> 
> Human rights.

I agree that basic human right is food and shelter. That should be
provided by state.

>  
> >>> If it is too high, he wouldn't get a job...  
> >> 
> >> If you take it to an extreme and say the min. wage should be
> >> $1000 / hour you end up with absurdity.  
> > 
> > In medias res!
> >   
> >> 
> >> Here is an argument for much higher than $15:
> >> <http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/>.
> >> 
> >> Basically it comes down to we have more technology and are more
> >> productive so we SHOULD be making more than we did in the past...
> >> which translates to having a better standard of living. I think
> >> there are some weaknesses in the argument, but overall think the
> >> basic premise makes sense. Set the min. wage to a good level and
> >> then have it set to change with inflation. Over time we can change
> >> that amount if we find it to be too high or too low... but the
> >> issue will then be more clear.  
> > 
> > It's not clear at all who would pay that.  
> 
> People who want labor should (in general) have to pay for it and not
> have the cost be socialized by the government. This means having a
> living wage... or giving up on human rights.

Human rights can only be provided by state.

> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350594

On 4/17/16, 8:26 PM, in article 20160418052634.702b4b04@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

...
>>>>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all
>>>>>> historical precedence and reason. The extreme of it is,
>>>>>> literally, slavery. Yeah, the South did economically well off
>>>>>> the backs of the poor... but equality was not respected.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.
>>>> 
>>>> For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no
>>>> means of doing that. And it does not have any focus on human
>>>> rights.  
>>> 
>>> What is society?
>> 
>> Really? I mean, come on... if you cannot figure out the meaning of
>> basic words you clearly are in over your head.
>> 
>> Without over-analyzing I will accept the definition that comes up
>> from a basic Google search: "the aggregate of people living together
>> in a more or less ordered community"
> 
> So it's aggregate of individuals.... each individual strives to
> maximize profit...

Not in contention... but each person is doing so for themselves. No reason
to think this translates into that working for society as a whole. And
nothing to protect human rights in that.

Do not get me wrong: Capitalism is great... but unfettered capitalism is
simply the selling of human rights to the highest bidder.

...
>>>> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!
>>> 
>>> Then why minimum wage in the first place?
>> 
>> Human rights.
> 
> I agree that basic human right is food and shelter. That should be
> provided by state.

For everyone? Working or not? Able or not?

An idea I have seen presented by some libertarians is to have everyone get a
basic stipend from the government and then to have no minimum wage. Here is
one stating of it: <http://youtu.be/T-6mzTHTjq8?t=7m8s>.

He sets the amount to something like $10,000 a year - now corrected so maybe
$15,000 (or at least every adult... I think the person he quotes says less
for adults). 

I can see some merit to that idea... and then the minimum wage would be much
less important. Say $15,000 a year each for two adults plus another $15,000
with two kids... a typical family. They would have $45K a year... which
actually seems a bit high to me... but it depends on where you live I
suppose.

At $15 a year, the couple, assuming both work full time, would be getting
about $60K a year... which I agree is high for minimum wage jobs! So I can
certainly sympathize with those saying $15 is high.
  
>>>>> If it is too high, he wouldn't get a job...
>>>> 
>>>> If you take it to an extreme and say the min. wage should be
>>>> $1000 / hour you end up with absurdity.
>>> 
>>> In medias res!
>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> Here is an argument for much higher than $15:
>>>> <http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/>.
>>>> 
>>>> Basically it comes down to we have more technology and are more
>>>> productive so we SHOULD be making more than we did in the past...
>>>> which translates to having a better standard of living. I think
>>>> there are some weaknesses in the argument, but overall think the
>>>> basic premise makes sense. Set the min. wage to a good level and
>>>> then have it set to change with inflation. Over time we can change
>>>> that amount if we find it to be too high or too low... but the
>>>> issue will then be more clear.
>>> 
>>> It's not clear at all who would pay that.
>> 
>> People who want labor should (in general) have to pay for it and not
>> have the cost be socialized by the government. This means having a
>> living wage... or giving up on human rights.
> 
> Human rights can only be provided by state.

At least for the most part agreed.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350596

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:43:48 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/16, 8:26 PM, in article 20160418052634.702b4b04@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >>>>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all
> >>>>>> historical precedence and reason. The extreme of it is,
> >>>>>> literally, slavery. Yeah, the South did economically well off
> >>>>>> the backs of the poor... but equality was not respected.  
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Capitalist economy is based on maximizing profits.  
> >>>> 
> >>>> For the individual (or the company). Not the society... it has no
> >>>> means of doing that. And it does not have any focus on human
> >>>> rights.    
> >>> 
> >>> What is society?  
> >> 
> >> Really? I mean, come on... if you cannot figure out the meaning of
> >> basic words you clearly are in over your head.
> >> 
> >> Without over-analyzing I will accept the definition that comes up
> >> from a basic Google search: "the aggregate of people living
> >> together in a more or less ordered community"  
> > 
> > So it's aggregate of individuals.... each individual strives to
> > maximize profit...  
> 
> Not in contention... but each person is doing so for themselves. No
> reason to think this translates into that working for society as a
> whole. And nothing to protect human rights in that.
> 
> Do not get me wrong: Capitalism is great... but unfettered capitalism
> is simply the selling of human rights to the highest bidder.
> 
> ...
> >>>> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!  
> >>> 
> >>> Then why minimum wage in the first place?  
> >> 
> >> Human rights.  
> > 
> > I agree that basic human right is food and shelter. That should be
> > provided by state.  
> 
> For everyone? Working or not? Able or not?

Yes. That should be provided by taxing....
State should provide basic things, so there would be no homeless and
hungry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350600

On 4/17/16, 8:50 PM, in article 20160418055049.6003c109@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Employers are not limited to pay only the minimum wage!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then why minimum wage in the first place?
>>>> 
>>>> Human rights. 
>>> 
>>> I agree that basic human right is food and shelter. That should be
>>> provided by state.
>> 
>> For everyone? Working or not? Able or not?
> 
> Yes. That should be provided by taxing....
> State should provide basic things, so there would be no homeless and
> hungry.

I would be open to that - something akin to the libertarian idea I posted.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350572

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

>>  
>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion.
> 
> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical
> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the
> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was
> not respected. 
> 
>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.
> 
> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason.
> 

If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow.
People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced
by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. 
And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt.

It doesn't matter how much you make.  What matters is what your
income will purchase.  And what matters most is that you actually
*have* an income.  This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum
wage and trying to compete in a world economy against nations whose
workers make pennies a day is *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders.  That
is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US economy. 

Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
bread next month.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350573

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
> bread next month.
> 
you mean 15$ a day or month?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350578

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
>> bread next month.
>> 
> you mean 15$ a day or month?
> 

Per hour.  Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an hour.
States are not allowed to set it lower.  Some states have set it higher.
A couple of states IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per hour.  Presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders is a proponent of raising the national minimum
wage to $15 per hour.  It's insane.  Our country will be a wasteland soon
even if it continues at its current level.  Double it and it's goodnight
Irene.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350582

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:45:02 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> 
> >> Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
> >> bread next month.
> >>   
> > you mean 15$ a day or month?
> >   
> 
> Per hour.

Wow! That's high!

  Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an
> hour. States are not allowed to set it lower.  Some states have set
> it higher. A couple of states IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per
> hour.  Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a proponent of
> raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour.  It's insane.  Our
> country will be a wasteland soon even if it continues at its current
> level.  Double it and it's goodnight Irene.
> 

15$ per hour is wage that is about 5 times greater than official
average wage here in Serbia, while actually 10 times greater.
Everything above 3 average wages in Serbia is additionally taxed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350592

On 4/17/16, 7:49 PM, in article 20160418044936.4bfae6b3@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:45:02 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
>>>> bread next month.
>>>>   
>>> you mean 15$ a day or month?
>>>   
>> 
>> Per hour.
> 
> Wow! That's high!

I can see where that is high for the country as a whole. It might be fine in
NY and CA but not in many other states. But it should, clearly, go up to
what it has been in the past and then set to match inflation.

>> Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an hour. States are not
>> allowed to set it lower.  Some states have set it higher. A couple of states
>> IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per hour.  Presidential candidate Bernie
>> Sanders is a proponent of raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour.
>> It's insane.  Our country will be a wasteland soon even if it continues at
>> its current level.  Double it and it's goodnight Irene.
> 
> 15$ per hour is wage that is about 5 times greater than official average wage
> here in Serbia, while actually 10 times greater. Everything above 3 average
> wages in Serbia is additionally taxed.

In the US we have had massive income redistribution to the rich. Part of the
idea of the higher minimum wage is to correct for that and help make a
stronger tie between productivity and financial reward. That connection is
heavily broken in the US right now.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350593

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:30:03 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/16, 7:49 PM, in article 20160418044936.4bfae6b3@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:45:02 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> 
> >>>> Mark my words.  A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
> >>>> bread next month.
> >>>>     
> >>> you mean 15$ a day or month?
> >>>     
> >> 
> >> Per hour.  
> > 
> > Wow! That's high!  
> 
> I can see where that is high for the country as a whole. It might be
> fine in NY and CA but not in many other states. But it should,
> clearly, go up to what it has been in the past and then set to match
> inflation.
> 
> >> Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an hour.
> >> States are not allowed to set it lower.  Some states have set it
> >> higher. A couple of states IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per
> >> hour.  Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a proponent of
> >> raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. It's insane.
> >> Our country will be a wasteland soon even if it continues at its
> >> current level.  Double it and it's goodnight Irene.  
> > 
> > 15$ per hour is wage that is about 5 times greater than official
> > average wage here in Serbia, while actually 10 times greater.
> > Everything above 3 average wages in Serbia is additionally taxed.  
> 
> In the US we have had massive income redistribution to the rich. Part
> of the idea of the higher minimum wage is to correct for that and
> help make a stronger tie between productivity and financial reward.
> That connection is heavily broken in the US right now.
> 
> 
> 

Here in Serbia people barely survive... One wage is not enough to pay
bills and food. Only two wages combined are barely enough. And rich are
still richer and richer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350595

On 4/17/16, 8:35 PM, in article 20160418053503.11c4bb53@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

>>>> Per hour.  
>>> 
>>> Wow! That's high!
>> 
>> I can see where that is high for the country as a whole. It might be
>> fine in NY and CA but not in many other states. But it should,
>> clearly, go up to what it has been in the past and then set to match
>> inflation.
>> 
>>>> Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an hour.
>>>> States are not allowed to set it lower.  Some states have set it
>>>> higher. A couple of states IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per
>>>> hour.  Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a proponent of
>>>> raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. It's insane.
>>>> Our country will be a wasteland soon even if it continues at its
>>>> current level.  Double it and it's goodnight Irene.
>>> 
>>> 15$ per hour is wage that is about 5 times greater than official
>>> average wage here in Serbia, while actually 10 times greater.
>>> Everything above 3 average wages in Serbia is additionally taxed.
>> 
>> In the US we have had massive income redistribution to the rich. Part
>> of the idea of the higher minimum wage is to correct for that and
>> help make a stronger tie between productivity and financial reward.
>> That connection is heavily broken in the US right now.
> 
> Here in Serbia people barely survive... One wage is not enough to pay
> bills and food. Only two wages combined are barely enough. And rich are
> still richer and richer.

Sounds much like the US.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web