Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (253910)	10/5/2005 9:32:45 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571927

>America can't support full employment, but America can afford to house, clothe, and feed all of its unemployed residents? Yes. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (253910)	10/5/2005 9:38:49 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571927

"America can't support full employment, but America can afford to house, clothe, and feed all of its unemployed residents?" Most other developed, industrialized countries do. It's all about government, and the choices we make. We could do it for much less than the cost of the Iraq war. Don't get me wrong - I think able bodied people should work, even if it's picking up trash by the roadside in a WPA-like program. Some would choose not to. epinet.org I think raising the minimum wage would help tremendously. There's not a lot of incentive to work when you know you'll STILL be poor.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (253910)	10/6/2005 7:23:41 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571927

re: America can't support full employment, but America can afford to house, clothe, and feed all of its unemployed residents? Yes, we can. We can also afford to raise low end wages to eliminate the "working poor", so that we are not looking at a ~20% family poverty rate (or whatever it is). It's not a one step solution. Reducing illegal (and legal) immigration for low end jobs would create more competition for workers, and raise wages for those jobs dramatically. Curb huge compensation packages for the top 10% of employees to help pay for it. It would probably reduce profits for corporations, which are setting all time records. Once you have a decent living wage at the low end, more people will be incited to work. Then you make sure you have a subsistence safety net for the rest. It's unconscionable that in this country, the ultimate consumption society where we piss away $Billions every day on worthless crap, build bridges to nowhere, that we can't figure a way to feed and house all our people. And that's not even counting the $Billions wasted in Iraq or on our military that is 5 times the size of the second largest in the world. John re: You obviously have no time to even reflect on your own contradictory views. Rather than just throwing out insults you might want to give an example.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (253910)	10/6/2005 1:45:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571927

America can't support full employment, What do you mean by the term "full employment". Under Clinton, unemployment dropped below 4%.....most economists believed that was full employment. but America can afford to house, clothe, and feed all of its unemployed residents? Yes, it can. It might mean that Paris has one less car to drive but really she'll survive. And we might not be able to start wars whenever we want........but we will do very nicely. ted