Detroit is broke!

In reply to tuna55:

Actually I have never read any of her stuff. I think I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged around here somewhere but I just have never gotten around to reading it.

rebelgtp wrote: In reply to tuna55: Actually I have never read any of her stuff. I think I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged around here somewhere but I just have never gotten around to reading it.

Atlas Shrugged is a good, but very long book. Read 'we the living', it's like an hour or two long and describes your dream rather nicely.

Swank Force One wrote: Think about how ridiculous that is... My wife works at a franchised frozen dairy store. I know the owners quite well. If they had to pay their entire staff at $16.54/hr, they would be out of business. Oh but the money trickles up, you may say... Sure, but then where does it stop? The money has to come from somewhere. Eventually all that will happen is that everyone has tons of money, and voila! The dollar is now devalued, have a nice day.

Funny, you used the term trickles up in a way that makes it sound like you're skeptical this would occur. Are you as skeptical of trickle down economics? History has proven that doesn't happen. If it did, we wouldn't have this discussion.

I agree with you in that it would be tough to pay worker salaries at the level discussed with current revenues. I'd argue with more money around there would be more consumers spending it. More revenues = more growth. More growth means more cash all over. A bit like post WW2. We have more money now but it's not being spent. It's being hoarded. This is why you don't see this occurring now.

It sounds like you're saying that if people were paid better it would be a horrible world to live in.

Swank Force One wrote: Here's why a lot of the kids that went to school with your Dad could afford new muscle cars: They had jobs and actually worked. Nowadays, high school kids have so much homework and silly extracuriculars that they don't have time to hold down a full time job. Quite honestly, i could have afforded a new muscle car working during high school. Because i lived with my parents. I wouldn't have wanted to buy a new muscle car, because at age 16-17 that's a BEYOND stupid financial decision, and no bank is doing that E36 M3 for a punk high school kid anyways, because they're smarter than that. (Maybe they were real dumb back then, i have no idea.)

So, you're arguing against better wages for employees. You're stating people don't work now as they did in the 60's and so are themselves to blame for decreased wages. Even with facts in your face stating worker productivity is much higher than it was back then. You're also stating that banks shouldn't loan money to "punk high school kids" even if they have the ways and means to pay back that loan with interest.

Interesting view point.

AngryCorvair wrote: i recommend being employable in an industry that can't be totally outsourced, that produces goods and services that "can't be lived without". electrician, plumber, mechanic, engineer, anything that requires hands-on. it may not be a perfect answer, but it's a pretty good one.

THIS is one way to be recession and outsourcing proof. If my job went poof I would seriously consider HVAC as a second career.

Xceler8x wrote: Funny, you used the term trickles up in a way that makes it sound like you're skeptical this would occur. Are you as skeptical of trickle down economics? History has proven that doesn't happen. If it did, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Yeah, you sure can summarize a few decades worth of turmoil by isolating exactly one aspect of one country's economy in four sentences on a message board. Congratulations. Go get your nobel prize in economics. Or, perhaps, it might be slightly more complicated than that.

Xceler8x wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Here's why a lot of the kids that went to school with your Dad could afford new muscle cars: They had jobs and actually worked. Nowadays, high school kids have so much homework and silly extracuriculars that they don't have time to hold down a full time job. Quite honestly, i could have afforded a new muscle car working during high school. Because i lived with my parents. I wouldn't have wanted to buy a new muscle car, because at age 16-17 that's a BEYOND stupid financial decision, and no bank is doing that E36 M3 for a punk high school kid anyways, because they're smarter than that. (Maybe they were real dumb back then, i have no idea.)

So, you're arguing against better wages for employees. You're stating people don't work now as they did in the 60's and so are themselves to blame for decreased wages. Even with facts in your face stating worker productivity is much higher than it was back then. You're also stating that banks shouldn't loan money to "punk high school kids" even if they have the ways and means to pay back that loan with interest. Interesting view point.

Let's not look past the big glaring point i made to nitpick something else you didn't like.

The point is that high school kids aren't working near as much as they did back when your dad was in high school. That's the point. No other.

Nowhere did i say i was against better wages for employees.

Nowhere am i saying that banks shouldn't loan money to "punk high school kids."

So i'm not real sure how you get off jumping to incorrect conclusions about what i said to fabricate statements i never made then passing them off as something that i said verbatim.

Or is that exactly how you DO get off?

By the way. You're a bank.

I'm 17 years old. I work 10 hours a week. I want a shiny new GT500. I can haz loan, plz?

yamaha wrote: Currently I make $12/hr and actually have a good life, sure, I am single and I cannot afford a new $40k lexus, but I know this and keep within my means. It'd be nice to make more, but I expect to have to do more and work harder to get that. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but the underlying problem is that someone has absolutely no business attempting to support a family working for minimum wage, no matter what the minimum wage is. I have never supported the minimum wage hikes, and I probably never will. FWIW, I work for a small family owned business that treats us pretty well, profit shares, provides other benifits, etc.

I appreciate your tone here. No apologies necessary. The conversation is how I gather new ideas and test out my thoughts. Thanks for helping me shape and break some ideas.

I think more people than most others believe have your work ethic. Most folks don't want a hand out. They want to work to support themselves. It sounds like you have a kind and compassionate employer too which helps. Profit sharing, from my experience, isn't a common perk. I think that says a lot of positive things about your company. Most minimum wage workers don't have any benefits and can expect to make $10/hr after being on the job for a decade. This is the difference I'm speaking of.

Which is one reason why they can't support a family on their salary. No benefits. No significant raises. No hope. Even if they set out to not have a family it sometimes happens. Birth control works well but it's not fail proof. Let's also consider people who have been shoved out of good jobs and now take what they can get. Sometimes that means minimum wage. What about retiree's who lost their retirement accounts in an Enron style bankruptcy? Or even Circuit City? They're near retirement age and working 40+ hrs a week to try to live on something. Not everyone on minimum wage is a single high school kid with a family to fall back on. Not everyone on minimum wage earned their way into poverty via poor decision making.

..all while Corps are making record profits and CEO pay is up to record levels. The greed has to end for the betterment of all of us.

tuna55 wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a good, but very long book. Read 'we the living', it's like an hour or two long and describes your dream rather nicely.

Atlas Shrugged is often either misunderstood or cherry picked for ideas.

"the book also criticizes government torture and targeted killing, denounces the concept of religion, and roundly ridicules anyone who trusts feelings over scientific fact."

Check out #2.

Xceler8x wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a good, but very long book. Read 'we the living', it's like an hour or two long and describes your dream rather nicely.

Atlas Shrugged is often either misunderstood or cherry picked for ideas. "the book also criticizes government torture and targeted killing, denounces the concept of religion, and roundly ridicules anyone who trusts feelings over scientific fact." Check out #2.

yes, Cracked is world renown for its book reviews.

Or I could just read the book. I did. Twice. I was talking about "we the living" though.

Xceler8x wrote: Most minimum wage workers don't have any benefits and can expect to make $10/hr after being on the job for a decade.

I gotta call "bs" on this. Even if you work for McD's, after 10 years if you're not management, you are a complete pile of crap. That means you're NOT really trying to work hard and achieve something.

Swank Force One! Argue with thy self!

Swank Force One wrote: Nowhere did i say i was against better wages for employees.

Swank Force One on Aug. 7, 2013 4:06 p.m. said: My wife works at a franchised frozen dairy store. I know the owners quite well. If they had to pay their entire staff at $16.54/hr, they would be out of business. Oh but the money trickles up, you may say... Sure, but then where does it stop? The money has to come from somewhere. Eventually all that will happen is that everyone has tons of money, and voila! The dollar is now devalued, have a nice day. To put this same sort of percentage math into perspective, i'd currently be getting paid just about $60/hr to do my current job. While that would be nice, and while i do believe that i'm underpaid at the moment, this job is NOT a $60/hr job.

~~~~~~

Swank Force One wrote: Nowhere am i saying that banks shouldn't loan money to "punk high school kids."

Swank Force One on Aug. 7, 2013 4:06 p.m. said: Quite honestly, i could have afforded a new muscle car working during high school. Because i lived with my parents. I wouldn't have wanted to buy a new muscle car, because at age 16-17 that's a BEYOND stupid financial decision, and no bank is doing that E36 M3 for a punk high school kid anyways, because they're smarter than that. (Maybe they were real dumb back then, i have no idea.)

~~~~~

Swank Force One wrote: So i'm not real sure how you get off jumping to incorrect conclusions about what i said to fabricate statements i never made then passing them off as something that i said verbatim.

If I misinterpreted what you said please state it differently please. I'd like to better understand your point of view. From the quotes listed above, all from you I might add, I don't think I read you wrong but I'm not perfect.

I don't understand why this is hard.

1) I'm against raising the minimum wage to $16.54. The end. How this gets twisted into me saying that i don't believe that workers should be paid more is beyond me, especially considering the rest of the text there that you quoted in which i even stated that i'm currently underpaid.

2) If punk high school kids satisfy income and credit requirements necessary to purchase a brand new shiny GT500, then the banks will loan. However, punk high school kids these days don't work full time jobs. Even if minimum wage was $16.54, the punk high school kid driving a new muscle car that he got a loan for without any help from mommy and daddy would be the HUGE exception, not the norm. (And it'd still be stupid. They'll have plenty of chances throughout the rest of their adult life to make dumb financial decisions.)

You're coming across as saying that high school kids should be entitled to be able to buy a new muscle car on their own. I'm sure that's not what you're actually saying, as that'd be beyond retarded, but it's easy to misconstrue what you're saying as such.

Swank Force One wrote: I'm sure that's not what you're actually saying,

I think he's saying:

"I'M TROLLING"

I know that's what he's saying. This happens about once every month, sometimes as long as 3-4 months in between, and has been going on periodically for about as long as i've been a member.

In the meantime, i'm more interested in hearing an excuse as to why he's projecting what he wants to hear me say in place of what i'm actually saying in order to keep this "discussion" alive.

Swank Force One wrote: I know that's what he's saying. This happens about once every month, sometimes as long as 3-4 months in between, and has been going on periodically for about as long as i've been a member. In the meantime, i'm more interested in hearing an excuse as to why he's projecting what he wants to hear me say in place of what i'm actually saying in order to keep this "discussion" alive.

Let's just talk about how a mildly boosted F2T could fix all of this Detroit nonsense. It could be the new Flounder.

I don't think it would fix all this Detroit nonsense, but it would certainly make driving through Detroit much more enjoyable. (And quicker.)

Swank Force One wrote: I don't think it would fix all this Detroit nonsense, but it would certainly make driving through Detroit much more enjoyable. (And quicker.)

How many of them would it take? Perhaps if every citizen had an F2T equipped ride they could all leave - quickly - and that would solve the issue.

Unfortunately, demand would outweigh supply at that point.

HOWEVER, i'd be all for this, as i'd be able to retire after i fleece all the poor souls i could exhausting my rather large surplus supply of F2 parts.

And i WOULD do so, because free market.

Swank Force One wrote: Unfortunately, demand would outweigh supply at that point. HOWEVER, i'd be all for this, as i'd be able to retire after i fleece all the poor souls i could exhausting my rather large surplus supply of F2 parts. And i WOULD do so, because free market.

Screw those punk high school kids, they already have GT500s. Does that make it better? We could give every person over 50 a GRM prepped beige Camry but they would only make it three miles or so, and they'd still be in Detroit.

tuna55 wrote: Yeah, you sure can summarize a few decades worth of turmoil by isolating exactly one aspect of one country's economy in four sentences on a message board. Congratulations. Go get your nobel prize in economics. Or, perhaps, it might be slightly more complicated than that.

Employees are making less now, adjusted for inflation, than they did 10 years ago. All while the top 1%'s income has gone up. If trickle down economics worked...we, the middle class, would've gained at least some of that increased income. We did not. Ergo, trickle down economics doesn't work or at least hasn't worked in the last decade or more. If you have proof to post pointing out otherwise, please do.

Check out this graph from Bloomberg. Link.

The graph I'm referring to is titled "How aggregate income has changed". It has data from 1967 on.

..also My BAD! Income for anyone but the upper 20% has dropped since the early 90's while it increased for the upper 20%. I guess the trickling down will start any minute now...yup....anytime....gonna start....real.....soon.

No nobel prize needed thanks. I stand on the shoulders of giants in this regard. I can't take credit for the graph so please keep the $1 mil reward Alfred Nobel has kindly offered.

That's all off topic.

Look what i made on Tuesday!

Swank Force One wrote: That's all off topic. Look what i made on Tuesday!

NICE - how many Detroiters can it pull safely clear of the city limits? That's a new neat way to measure output

tuna55 wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: That's all off topic. Look what i made on Tuesday!

NICE - how many Detroiters can it pull safely clear of the city limits? That's a new neat way to measure output

Whoa, seriously, that manifold hurts my brain.

tuna55 wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: That's all off topic. Look what i made on Tuesday!

NICE - how many Detroiters can it pull safely clear of the city limits? That's a new neat way to measure output

Depends on what chassis it's dumped into. Currently this one is going into an 88 MX6 GT, so.... 4, legally. Could probably stuff at least 10 starving rioting looting Detroiters in it if you weren't worried about seatbelts, though.

It'd have the torque to pull a school bus, though.

tuna55 wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: That's all off topic. Look what i made on Tuesday!

NICE - how many Detroiters can it pull safely clear of the city limits? That's a new neat way to measure output

Whoa, seriously, that manifold hurts my brain.

Heh, weird angle. It's not a bad little manifold.