pirana

Since products made overseas rival American made goods in quality and can be sold far cheaper for greater profit, there will always be stores importing and selling the stuff. Why should I pay $59.95 for an American made toaster that may last five years when I can buy a Chinese made toaster for $24.95 that will last 10 years? The days of "Made in the USA" meaning "Highest Quality" are gone. If all else were equal i would pay a small, maybe 10%, premium to buy Amaerican...but I, as most people, will not pay 25%-50%-100% more for something that may or may not be as good. Chances are it isn't. My experience, and what I've read from so-called experts, is that their quality is improving, but still overall lacking. There isn't really anything there, other than groceries, that I would buy. They tend to stock the cheapest possible version of just about everything they carry - but then again - that is their mission. At least these days you can usually get thru the instructions without much trouble. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I believe Walmart's percentage share of the grocery market is now in the low to mid-20's. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Walmart really doesn't care about most of the stuff mentioned. Their #1 goal (pretty much their only goal) is to provide the lowest priced merchandise as they can to the masses. If they could pay $1 per hour and still attract the labor they need, they'd would. If that meant their employees lived in 3rd world style tarpaper shacks - their rhetoric would be similar to their current speil. They would simply point out that they are responding to the market and that their goal is not to buy people homes and cars and health care, but simply to do right for their customers by providing the lowest possible prices. As long as people keep shopping there - that will not change. Of course Walmart has done their fair share to disembowel US labor (as much or more so than the unions they piss and moan about all the time) by carrying an inventory that is probably at least 90% made in Asia. I wonder if it was an unexpected benefit of their extreme philosophy on low prices, or if they had models that indicated purchasing all of their inventory from overseas would create a class that could not afford to shop anywhere else. Either way, their customer base is really locked in. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Why do the citizens of the US need the government to step in? Why not just do the right thing? Stop buying the cheap low quality shit they produce. Low priced low quality goods are to US consumers what Kool-Aid was to Jonestown. I'm sure it was yummy and sweet on the way down. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Heartily agree. If the abuse were to end, our situation would probably be very different. The looseness of our welfare system did little damage when we were, as a whole, living high on the hog. Like most individuals, groups tend to live into their income. Then when things get tight - the adjustments are painful. Now that we have tougher competition on all fronts, our extravagant (unbridled or out-of-control might be better words) programs are a considerable source of economic pain. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Typical style of speech from people who are emotionally rather than intellectually centered. Kinda like: "You do that all the time." Really means you did it at least once and I don't like it. "You never do that." Really means I like it and you don't do it enough. It was just his way of saying he doesn't like them; and we are all supposed to know that based on his personality profile. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm with you on the desire to see people pay for their own abortions, but so many of them don't have the money, and studies I've seen indicate it is probably the best crime prevention program going. So it's pay for an abortion now, or count on paying far more later to deal with a big chunk of them. Fiscally speaking - public funding for abortions is a very good deal for all taxpayers. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The Founding Fathers were were very split over state's rights - but by a slim margin foresaw that a strong federal union subject to review was the best compromise. Unfortunately, the compromise was untenable and eventually exploded into war. Read the source documents penned by both sides. It is a debate that predated the union, nearly undermined the Constitutional Convention, and never went away - and still hasn't. The FF saw the union as more important than the individual states, enough to relegate the states to matters of local concern, and to give the Fed the real power. Times change, issues evolve, and things that were once of only local concern (such as commerce) morphed into national importance. The South could not let go and took up arms. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Couple thoughts on this: 1 - If they look into small enough segments they will probably find enough sub-sub-subcategories to support either view. It would not be deceiving to draw conclusions for that specific subcategory; but it would be to use that subcategory to blast out a headline that gender pay inequity does not exist. 2 - The only meaningful studies would be ones that compare a statistically valid sample of people doing the same job, in the same region, and adjusted for hours worked. 3 - Discrimination by types of jobs but not by gender is a separate but related issue. Professions typically made up largely of women may pay less, but if both sexes make the same then the gap is attributable directly to the profession chosen - and only indirectly to the notion that women's labor is of less value. 4 - Men are more impacted by a weak economy simply because more of them hold jobs. 5 - Lastly; my contribution towards keeping this in SC: Q. - Why is housecleaning mostly done by the female in the husehold? A. - Because it's women's work. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What State rights in particular? Anti-Federalism predates even the formation of The Union. Before there was even a specific issue to respond to, there was very strong distrust for centralized power. It took 7 decades for the debate to ferment into all out conflict - and when it did the issues revolved around commerce in general and the threat to southern commerce in the form of the abolition of slavery. But saying slavery caused the war would be oversimplification. It was just the catalyst issue at the time. The debate has never gone away and has manifested itself around issues of education, voting rights, and even marriage. So the short answer is that the debate began as an arguement in principle with no specific complaint other than how the rules should be written (because of a some well founded distrusts of central authority); and the war began when the ongoing debate threatened tthe cornerstones of the southern economy. There are many good texts on the early debate over states rights - but it is best to look at ones that includes the original documents related to the topic (by Jeffreson, Hamilton, and Madison above all; but also Washington, Yates, Gerry, Jones, Mason and others). Revionists and even well intentioned historians do not do them justice. From this student's perspective I believe we are fortunate that the Federalist's had the vision to see the havoc multiple powerful legislatures would wreak on a future US of A - and that they won the day. But the debate has still not been settled, and maybe that is good, as it evolves with the issues of the day - as is evidenced by George Wallace needing to be removed from the university steps as he tried to assert his state's right to deny school entry based on skin color. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Should the person working 4 or 5 days per week (regularly scheduled - mostly the same days) be in equal rotation on the days they work as the people there 6 or 7 days per week? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I question that as a definition. I think it's possible to have all three be identical, yet separated by geography and end up with wildly different cultures. It's not a definition; only a list of factors cultures themselves use as first level determinants of group identity. Two geographically separate areas can have the same race, religion, and language; and have the same or a different culture. Nothing I said precludes either outcome. However, if 2 separate groups do truly have all 3 in common, they most likely have a common ancestral source and will have many shared cultural traits. Cultures evolve, and similar to other evolving things; the longer and more complete the separation, the less similar 2 groups of same origin will become. Interesting you mentioned geographical separation, because that field is how I came to study the topic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

States rights. The war was fought as the result of disagreement over what rights individual states could control. Based on this result, if the South had succeeded in becoming a separate nation, we might have seen Las Vegas style wedding chapels all along the north side of the Mason-Dixon line. BTW, because I think this issue is more cultural in general and less of a specific political issue; I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant percentage of Democrats feeling the same way. By significant, I mean anything over about 2%. Could be the reason for the delay - they might be quite embarassed (depending on their political agenda) to have to report the results. I think they should stir the pot a little more and conduct a poll on gay marriage. And then a poll on gun ownership. And while they are at it, one to find out why Mississippians don't cover their open wells. OTOH, it does seem to be several weeks now without a story of a child in Mississippi being rescued from an open well. OTOH, I do think that the right to leave dangerous holes in your backyard is a right worth fighting for. OTOH, I have never seen a worthy study proving this is a regional versus national problem. OTOH, I do not want to see one if it requires $5 million in federal funds to conduct. Boy, Obama was right - this stuff is complicated. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Race is one of the 3 first level factors of culture.* That is not to say race is a subset of culture, but a very strong factor in identification of it. Also, a culture can be comprised of multiple races. So it is not incorrect to say there is a difference between what the terms represent, as long as the reference does not assume they are unrelated or exclusionary. *The 3 being race, religion, and language. For the record, my opinion is that this person (regardless of age) should never be permitted to own a gun. Don't care what kind of bleeding heart excuses are given (bad parenting, bad genes, whatever). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Because the wages of US laborers are competing against overseas wages - a losing battle for US labor. The productivity is a separate issue. Though the US has done well to increase productivity - it has largely came via automation. The earnings of capital on the other hand increase on both fronts - from the increaased US production AND shipping jobs overseas. Capital is having it's cake and eating it too; labor is left with the crumbs. Basically, it is a race to the bottom for labor costs, and consequentially for the laborers that represent those costs. As was mentioned in a different thread, if you don't have some capital in the game - you are fucked. The best way out of the game is to refocus expectations. My advice to young people entering is to either get mean and ruthless if you think you have the stomach for the corporate game; or develop a skill that must be procurred locally. Artisans, craftsmen, tradesmen, etc are pretty immune to exportation of their services - though the price of their services will see downward pressure. For unskilled labor, the beating has only just begun. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And all of that has been covered in post #5 of this thread. None of that was because of the GOP. Never said it was. Production increases have been squeezed out of our (US) processes by corporations in response to overseas competition. In an unfortunate twist (for US laborers), the profits resulting from that increased production have been invested in further automation and overseas facilities - kind of a snowball effect gone berzerk. It goes like this: Faster faster you fools you fools. Ah, well done - now here is your pink slip. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think our greatness (dominance) was mostly the result that we went for so long without having our country destroyed by war. Unions did some very good and noble things for the lower classes; but had little to do with achieving greatness. Since our civil war, we have managed to avoid having any significant conflict fought on North American soil. We emereged from WWII absolutely dominant because so much of the rest of the free world was decimated, not because we are so much smarter than everybody else; and certainly not because of union activism. Proof of that is how easily much of the rest of the world caught up once they rebuilt. 100 years of not being bombed and 5 decades with essentially no competition ended in the 70's. Our economy, our lifestyle, and our dominance will never be like that again; unless another worldwide conflict can be managed so that all the rest of the developed world gets flattened again. We could then take greatness to a new all-time high. The Freemasons, Skull & Bones, Trilateral Commision, Illuminati, Templars, military-industrial complex, Tea Party, FOX News, and others are probably working on that strategy right now. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

This reminds me of "Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish." " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yes. The Federal Government and state government. . The government IS the people of the USA. The federal government has become the lackey of lobbyists representing groups with common specific interests. Blocks that are large, organized, and have lots of cash to spread around pretty much get what they want - via their lobbyists. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The facts do not (once again) support your position. The facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's definitely the Twinkies. I think most all conflicts are over resources and their allocation. Even conflicts that appear to be religious in nature are just resource battles in disguise - with the Middle East being a prime example. Mostly just good old fashioned greed, an unfortunate remnant of survival instincts. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Do you believe the cost of governmental services are free? Government services do have a cost attached. The cost of government services has nothing to do with the private property of wages. Would it suprise you to know that the Federal Government operated for over 100 years without any income tax? Peace, Jim B. And humans operated for 100's of 1000's of years without sewer or septic systems. You should enjoin the discussion in good faith instead of asking manipulative questions. YES. The very simple and straightforward answer to your very simple and straightforward question is yes. Your wages are your private property. Now that it has been answered, I'm interested to see where you go with this. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think Economics needs to become a core subject at the High School level - maybe Middle School - rather than something that gets a few minutes of discussion in Intro to Business or Social Studies. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

...and how are you going to do that? Reduce wages? (see other thread) The question does not even need to be asked. it's already answwered. Wages are going down, and have been for at least 20 years. Sure, the dollar amount may go up, but buying power is on the decrease, and that will continue - whether by conscious decision or not. The question of wages is moot; the real issue is how we will deal with it. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I pray you join the real world. The real world understands guns should NOT be allowed everywhere. The real world understand it's necessary to pay taxes for the governmental services they receive. If you want to live exclusively by your own rules, start up your own damn country. Aw come on. His boot licking rhetoric is pretty amusing. Reminds me of when some of ours and other countries leaders use phrases like running dogs and evil empire. Has a certain dogmatic biblical ring to it. Ye shalt be cast to shining shoes for all eternity if ye doth not arm thyself to thy teeth whilst pursuing photo op with Mickey and Minnie. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley