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: combjelly who wrote (800571)	8/9/2014 3:04:08 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By gamesmistress Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578306

>> Wage growth has not kept up with growth in productivity. This is a liberal lie, an Elizabeth Warren-styled misleading claim. There was an excellent article at Heritage Foundation a year or so ago that explained in the clearest possible terms why it is a lie and how, in fact, wages HAVE kept up with productivity. I can't remember the name of it but I'm sure you can find it. The bottom line of that article was that statistical manipulation was used by those making the claim in that they omitted non-cash compensation and incorrectly compared inflation adjustments by applying different bases. Warren has a history of such abuse (see: "The Harvard Study" on medical bankruptcy). >> You want to talk about useless jobs? Much of the financial industry fits into that category. All they do is slosh money around. Every time it comes their way, they get to skim some off. This does not improve the economy at all. Rentiers, for the most part, fall into this category also. While there are no doubt some nonproductive activities in finance, your characterization of sloshing and skimming is a relatively small portion of it due to markets which do not tolerate waste very well. Markets will not pay people to slosh and skim; they'll find a better way. There are always resellers who don't add much value and they typically find themselves filtered out of the process over time. I think what you're referring to are the people who structure and facilitate deals. If, in fact, they aren't earning their keep, buyers and sellers will ultimately cut them out. >> The Occupy movement could have been the trigger. But as media-savvy as Millennials are, they didn't communicate effectively with anyone other than other Mellennials. A collection of slobs demanding free shit is not going to engender broad success. Isn't going to happen. They'll get free shit but only with government thugs, intent on getting votes for their side, as an intermediary. In the case of Occupy, they had headline coverage for months from the liberal media. It isn't like they had no voice. But even working people at the lower end of the scale have no tolerance for it. The Occupy movement failed because they were perceived as what they were: People who want other people to work then fork then split their profits with them. That doesn't cut any ice with the majority of people, even many of those who are on the dole. Let me know when poor people start hiring. >> The next time something like Occupy pops up, they won't make the same mistake. It isn't a mere mistake when your fundamental philosophy makes no sense at all. If the Occupy movement had been comprised of low-wage working people, their voices may have been heard. But these were people who were not trying and everyone recognized it. Even the more accomplished among them -- the Masters degrees in Art, were examples of what not to do in life. The Occupy movement takes a distant back seat to the unconstrained borrowing our government is engaged in.