Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "'Freebies' Like Healthcare u0026 Education Are A 'Gravy Train'" video.

  1. +Ryan Brown They are also countries with populations that are smaller than most of our states.
    1
  2. +Ylze Tyr A lot. At lower populations you have less bureaucracy and diversity to deal with.
    1
  3. +Ryan Brown Less diversity and bureaucracy means a lot.
    1
  4. +Ylze Tyr BTW have you read Paul Krugman's AP Economics textbook yet? Until you can read high school material you should let the adults converse.
    1
  5. +Ylze Tyr That you don't understand much. There is a reason why the founding fathers wanted state rights, or a high school has multiple teachers and department. You lack understanding of levels of bureaucracy and inefficiency. Of course when you can't even read high school level textbooks I am not surprise.
    1
  6. +Ryan Brown It is arguable that the US has the best system in the world. When you remove murder and accidents, things not associated with healthcare, the US is number one in life expectancy.
    1
  7. +kmeccat You most certainly can remove murder and accidents when you are looking at how healthcare directly effects life expectancy. As I said the US is number one at that point. Like the US is number one in cancer survival rates. You say are quite far down on overall life expectancy. That depends on your definition of "quite far down". We are at 78 years. The world average is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. Number one is Japan at 83 years. We are less than one standard deviation away from the top. Any difference at that point is called noise in statistics. The same is true for other stats that you are pointing out. There are several variables involved. Considering how we are a country of 300 million people and you are comparing us to countries of only a few million at best it is clear that we are not "quite far down". Oh, and some areas where we are number one that you forgot. We are number one in research and innovation of technology and healthcare. Back to healthcare we are number one in responsive care as well. Sure it might be expensive but other countries pay in longer wait time and lower quality. But of course you will choose to ignore that as well. "Only "first world nation" that does NOT mandate paid sick days, paid vacation days or holidays, paid maternity leave." And other countries have higher cost of living as a result, but I guess you will ignore that also.
    1
  8. +Michael Phan On Germany and education, the US does have a better university system than Germany. As far as healthcare, it is highly debatable the the US does have better healthcare as well. Germany does a lot of good things. But as a whole you have a lot of differences in terms of society. For example we don't have guards with fully automatic rifles in our airports, you do. As my old adviser said about Germany, they are nothing but a bunch of goose steppers.
    1
  9. +Ylze Tyr Excuse me, the adults are talking.
    1
  10. +Ryan Brown If a broken leg bankrupts you then you have had a lot of problems in life. In other countries you may not get certain care. For example my colleague from Canada could not get knee surgery. His cousin could not get heart surgery. The only problem in healthcare in the US is cost. Nobody complains about the quality. Cost is so high due to actions done by the federal government. Adding more layer to government won't help.
    1
  11. +Ryan Brown If you include PPP then the US has some of the highest wages and GDP per capita in the world. For what you get in college it is price really well. It is high due to the federal government.
    1
  12. +Ryan Brown I heard of the saying "working poor". How high should wages be? What determines that? You have a very simplistic view of the government. Other countries have inferior university systems compared to the US. Who cares if it is "free" if it sucks.
    1
  13. +Ryan Brown Since the 70s you have to realize a few things have happened. 1. We stopped using the gold standard. Money is not a finite resource with a set value. Taking it off the gold standard means that the value of money can change drastically. 2. We have seen more pay due to increase productivity. Some workers have seen more benefits. Due to the payroll tax giving out higher wages means higher taxes for employers. To avoid that benefits such as healthcare insurance were given out as payment. 3. Workers who have invested and invented technology for increase production have seen an increase in wages. This is called Skilled Bias Technological Change. 4. Disposable income is up. This is due to greater wealth. Greater wealth comes from greater productivity which means that goods and services are better and cheaper. While the dollar value people are earning is similar, what they can purchase is better. Cars are better and last longer for example. People wanted a "mixed economy" and we have gotten mixed results. In some ways people are better off. In others they are not. What is a common denominator in all of this is that areas where the federal government has had a large hand in it financially have all seem to become more expensive. For example healthcare and college education. While Scandinavian countries are in the top 10 they still fall far behind in the US in universities. The US is unique. We have a lot of smaller schools that push for smaller classrooms. That develops a stronger personal connection between students and students and students and professors. We have athletics which gives jobs and opportunity there. We have diversity in so many ways. Scandinavian countries have great universities ranking wise, but those universities are typically ranked high due to research which only benefit graduate students. Plus, even with that the US is still number one in research and development of technology and healthcare. Few people go $100,000 in debt. The ones that do are either ignorant or became a doctor or pharmacist and pay it off quickly.
    1
  14. +Ylze Tyr Seriously, you have never proven me anything. You continue to try to push that but you never do it. This is shown when you can't even read a textbook that is at the level of a 100 level economics course. Or you did not know who Christina Romer was. Engaging with you is like engaging with a child. You will stomp your feet and cry in the end. Seriously kid, it is Sunday, go play in the playground today and burn off some energy.
    1
  15. +Ryan Brown Scandinavian countries do a lot of things right, you have to realize they are also smaller than the US and overall are a completely different countries. Most of the countries have populations smaller than a lot of our states. Mix that in with a different history and society it makes for a very weak comparison. Honestly in all I hate comparing the US to other countries, the variables are too great. Even if you do you see that we are just as successful as them. For example life expectancy. The US is at 78 years, the world average is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. All those Scandinavian countries are within one standard deviation of us and we are one standard deviation above the average. Any different in life expectancy is called noise at that point due to whatever variable. So if you really want to compare and look at data we can. When we do you see we are on par with those countries. If you want to know my stance on what should be done I support state rights and a very limited federal government. With state rights you allow for flexibility and cater to diversity. You have the ability to have government and control it. As Liam Scott said are what those countries doing sustainable? If we establish those programs at the federal level they will be hard to change where at the state and local level you can change them easier and adjust. Just look at Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. People are pushing for reform. Both sides want reform but it isn't happening. Or with the recent healthcare law. We could not get 60 democrat senators to agree to one bill and when it finally passed half of the country hates it.
    1
  16. +Ryan Brown They are higher by 0.03 points. As I said in statistics that is called noise. You don't split hairs on a margin that small. Norway has 5 million people, less than over half of our states. They also are willing to tap into their oil and actually sell it. That plays a role as well. Even with that they are only higher by 0.03. That is being on par with them.
    1
  17. +Ryan Brown I gave you an answer, it is called noise. If the HDI was off by 0.1 then you have an argument, but off by 0.03 you have nothing.
    1
  18. +Ryan Brown I am a moderate. I support following the constitution. When a new policy is being pushed we have to ask 1. Does this violate the constitution in any way 2. How well does it benefit society 3, If it is a failure can we quickly change it
    1
  19. +Ryan Brown I told you what I was. You have to understand that the US is a country, Europe is a continent.
    1
  20. +Ryan Brown I am not a republican or a democrat. I am a progressive and I am more progressive then self proclaimed progressive. The least progressive party in the US are democrats. I constantly rip on republicans and hate their hypocritical stance of wanting small government and then pushing for more federal involvement on social issues. Democrats always expand the power of the federal government which goes against the constitution and state rights, both of which I support.
    1
  21. +Ryan Brown You are trying to put me in a group and it won't work.
    1
  22. +Ryan Brown Just because the government "provides" something doesn't mean it is a progressive approach. Take education. I support public education at the state and local level. Public education can either be the greatest program our society can offer or the worst. In the latter case it can be used as indoctrination. Keeping it at the local level allows for the citizens to see if it is actually working. It is checks and balances. If done at the federal level it either becomes indoctrination or a waste. That isn't progressive. That is one of my biggest complaints with the left, they want to expand the government and claim they are being "progressive" while doing it. In the big picture we don't need government to be educated, especially in higher education. There is nothing that points towards the government running it as being progressive.
    1
  23. The New Deal turned a recession into a depression. Does matter if it was popular, it was a terrible policy. If you want something messed up then have the federal government touch it. Everything that the federal government has touched, as in effect it greatly financially, has broke except for the military. The military does well because the government workers there are discipline. Oh well. What do I care. I am highly skilled and will have no problem getting a job.
    1
  24. +Cloe Jarozenski Problem is that it won't be affordable.
    1
  25. +Really Twisted Humor With the progressive tax it is free for a set of people.
    1
  26. When Kyle says something like forcing people to work after they have a baby, he is not any better. Nobody is forcing anyone to work after they have a baby. That is an extremist view point. Saying X amount of people die due to lack of access to basic healthcare is a meaningless stat. One, we have medicare and medicaid. Next, how many people die due to inferior care in other countries? Sure they have access, but the care is not great. If you remove murder and accidents, things not tied to healthcare, the US is number one in life expectancy. Even if government healthcare works better in other countries, you can't compare the US to other countries. There are too many variables. Even with that we are $18 trillion in debt. We don't have the money.
    1
  27. +Equals Four Because what have low wage workers done to get a higher wage?
    1
  28. +Equals Four Them having more money on the bottom does not increase buying power. What does is more wealth. If you give them more money and more wealth is not created then all you have done is raise prices. Spending is important, production is important.
    1
  29. +Equals Four If someone wants to join a union then that is their problem. I avoided a job that had a union because I knew that I am better than that. They would have held me back.
    1
  30. +Equals Four In a properly orchestrated capitalist economy those on the bottom rung of employees are those first entering the workforce and those working part time for supplemental income. And yes, we have seen prices go up because of the min. wage. Look at food. We are producing too much food but yet the price keeps going up. Restaurants and grocery stores possess a lot of low skill/low wage workers. In restaurants the price of labor is out pacing productivity. In a strong economy prices should be going down and they have. From wealth creation computers, cell phones, TVs, cars and so on are going down. As I said, spending isn't good, what is good is producing. "Therefor, they would have more buying power, more buying power increases overall demand, which creates a rush to more supply, which in turn creates more wealth OVERALL. When everyone prospers, the economy prospers. " They won't have more buying power though. You don't have to increase demand. The demand is already there. People demand better goods and services. In a competitive economy businesses will push for that at make them at an affordable price. In the end you can't consume what you don't produce. You give those on the bottom rung more money and their production remains the same then something has to give. Employees are not going to all of a sudden be more productive just because they are earning more money. So in the end no one prospers and the economy gets worse.
    1
  31. +Equals Four 1. Improved engineering is wealth creation. 2. With improved productivity you have better goods and services at a more affordable price. Due to that happening we have seen a steady increase in disposable income. Your number one flaw is that you are looking simply at dollars. Money is not a finite resource with a set price. You can force people to be paid more, or you can give them more money. But if productivity does not go up then all you do is raise price. If productivity goes up and the amount of money stays the same then prices go down. Improve technology means more productivity which means better goods and services at a cheaper price. For example cars are cheaper and better. 3. If workers in the private sector want to form a union then that is their business. I personally wouldn't want to join one. But if they want to then they can take that risk.
    1
  32. +Equals Four 1. Laborers do benefit. Greater wealth creation comes from greater productivity which means better goods and services at a lower price. When an engineer develops a better car and a faster means of producing it then the laborers can buy it. Also with more technology jobs get easier and safer. You also have to consider that even though those who invented and invested in technology have seen a raise, it doesn't mean that those on the bottom are worse off. We have seen more jobs created as well. When those on top earn a lot those on the bottom earn more. A great example is everyone's favorite whipping boy.....Walmart. Walmart has developed a powerhouse in that it employs a lot of people and offers goods and services at a low price at convenient locations. The top 6 CEOs of Walmart earn $77 million a year combined. One may say that is too much. But if you were to take that money and spread it evenly to the 525,000 workers who earn less than $25,000 a year they will earn an extra $148 a year. Not much. The point is that when the top earn more those on the bottom earn more as well in other ways. 2. Wages have gone up due to productivity. One, those who invented and invested in technology to increase productivity have seen a higher wage. It is called skilled biased technological change. You can't just simply look at the min. wage. Min. wage jobs have not increased in productivity at all, or have very little. In fact, if you look at full service restaurants for about the past 20 years you will see that unit labor cost has been increasing. That means the price of labor is outpacing productivity. Plus min. wage workers are not the ones producing or working on the Toyota Corolla. So it is a flawed comparison. You also have to consider, as I mentioned above, that goods and services are better and cheaper. While that Toyota Corolla is more expensive sticker price wise, it comes with more amenities and a longer life time. It has a longer MPG and is safer as well.
    1
  33. +cindy a It isn't repulsive. What is repulsive is the false idea that you need government to fund and give you those things. Why stop there? Why not free homes and food? Why not free cars and pets? With that healthcare and education are now arbitrary.
    1
  34. +cindy a Except liberals push for a progressive tax code and keep preaching that the rich need to "pay their fair share". So in all it is free for a set of people. And even those in the middle class will be paying less taxes compared to the rich.
    1
  35. +cindy a Most of these problem are due the the federal government. Anything the federal government has touched, as in has had a strong influence in financially ends up breaking. Healthcare is more expensive due to federal policy dating back to the 1940s at least. Our tax code became a mess when the federal income tax became permanent in 1913. Adding more layers of federal government is just adding fuel to the fire.
    1
  36. +cindy a Yes I agree that we need a government. But we need to be able to control government. You can get all of that at the local level if you so desire. With smaller, more local government you have the ability to see if your tax dollars are being spent well. At the federal level you can't. If you want government to get involved then do it at that state and local level. At the federal level you are putting to much power in one area. Also, what is wrong with profits? Do you work for free? I bet you do a lot of things for a profit of a sort. Profit motives is competition. That is how you get the best results. When you look at stuff the federal government has not had a strong role in financially they are things that have gotten better and cheaper. In places where the federal government has had a strong role in financially they have gotten more expensive. When you remove profit motives and competition then you ruin wealth creation.
    1
  37. +Ylze Tyr Except the federal government has had a strong role in healthcare and education and the price has gone up. I know history and economics are not your strong subjects so I will just end at that.
    1
  38. +cindy a To you they are ran by loonies. To the citizens they are people they wanted and they voted for them. Trust me, people are not a fan of Jerry Brown. You are looking at TX when TX has one of the strongest economies in the US. You may feel they are not providing what they should but if the citizens of TX don't care then why should you? You wanting to change their way to what you think is right is fascism. You can live in your state and run it like you want and they can live in theirs. That is diversity. Education and healthcare can be cheaper, and better if it were for profit. If you are going to have the government fund it you have to insure that you get your money's worth which will keep down cost as well. As is, with the federal government running it, you end up with waste thus higher prices.
    1
  39. +cindy a And so what? That is what citizens in Texas want. If they don't want to expand medicaid then that is their issue. Why you do have to be so fascist and force your way down their throats? How would you feel if the citizens of Texas prevented your state from expanding medicaid? Consider that. Gerrymandering happens both ways. The gerrymandering excuse is basically saying "I can't convince people to vote for me so I will just cry about it".
    1
  40. +Ylze Tyr I didn't ignore anything, sorry kid. Until you do your homework and read Paul Krugman's AP Economics textbook you have no room to talk. You can't even read introductory books. You can't graduate out of 100 level courses. You can't even begin to have a discussion like they have in a 300 or 400 level course Oh, I know that you have no clue how a college is ran, so when I say 100 level courses I am saying introductory courses. When I am saying 300 or 400 level courses I am saying more advance courses, courses that a junior or senior will take.
    1
  41. +cindy a If people in Houston don't like it then they can either 1. Rally to elect new politicians 2. Move like I know several people from CA that got fed up with CA It isn't that hard.
    1
  42. +cindy a I ignore Ylze Tyr because we have been in debates before. He presents a side, I present a side and give a lot of resources showing why he is not correct, and then he ends with "you are wrong and stupid" while acting like a child. I talk about the AP textbook because it refers back to an argument about the min. wage. I referenced Paul Krugman's AP economics textbook in showing how price setting is inefficient. Also during that same time I reference Christina Romer whom he has never heard of. He just said I was "wrong and stupid". It is clear that he even refuses to read an introductory textbook on the subject we are discussing. Until he does that we can't move on to more advanced topics.
    1
  43. +Ylze Tyr Because I know how this story ends. I point out how you are incorrect, I break it down for you how you are incorrect, and I give references pointing out how you are incorrect and then you stomp your feet and say "your are wrong, you are stupid". I can't take you serious when you, one, lack knowledge of basic facts (such as who Christina Romer is), and two, can't comprehend an introductory economics textbook. It would be like me trying to teach quantum mechanics from Griffith's book to a student that can't understand Serway and Jewett's introductory physics book.
    1
  44. +Ylze Tyr The fact you never heard of her means a lot. You cited a government website but you did not know she was Obama's Chairperson for the Council of Economic Advisers. Even she said that raising the min. wage would basically have zero positive effects in the economy.
    1
  45. +Ylze Tyr On your question, college loans is why tuition is going up. It is basic economics. You increase consumption without increasing supply then prices go up. For healthcare. One is medicare and medicaid. Another is the pure fact that payroll taxes made it so businesses can't give out raises. The only way they could is through benefits such as healthcare insurance since they were 100% tax free. Wages weren't. Because of that employees had to deal with the insurance plan their employer gives them. Instead of people getting a higher wage to buy their own insurance that benefits them at a low price, they are stuck with a generic plan. This removed the consumer/seller negotiation which caused price increases and low quality insurance plans. The same is with college loans. The consumer/seller negotiation was removed. Colleges can raise tuition with little resistance. Healthcare companies can raise prices with little resistance since the actual consumer does not negotiate with them. That is basic economics.
    1
  46. +Ylze Tyr She has a PhD in economics, I feel that is somebody.
    1
  47. +Ylze Tyr And now phase 2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/03/increased-tuition-subsidies-increase-the-price-of-college-tuition/ http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-student-loans-may-cause-high-college-tuition-prices-2015-8 " "medicare and medicaid" what about them? what the hell do they have to do with private insurance?" A lot. It is setting an artificial price floor on insurance. "then you're on payroll taxes and businesses not being able to give raises? what the fuck does that have to do with anything?" A lot. Payroll taxes make it harder for businesses to give out raises. The higher the wage the more taxes they pay. " again, that has literally nothing to do with the costs of private insurance." Yes it does because people have no choice but to get their insurance through their job instead of purchasing it themselves. " that still has nothing to do with the federal gov." Yes it does, because of the payroll tax. Before it people were seeing their wages go up. After that the only raise they got was in benefits. "we're not talking about employers failure to provide insurance for employees." Why should employers pay for insurance? That can be avoided by the removal of the payroll tax.
    1
  48. +Ylze Tyr No, because they can't get a raise due to the payroll tax. If you had a choice of doing option A and paying a tax and option B and paying zero taxes but essentially getting the same result, what will you do? That was what businesses ran into. Pay a higher wage and pay higher taxes, or give out healthcare insurance and pay zero taxes. The latter benefited the employer, not the employee.
    1
  49. +Ylze Tyr Every source of yours is opinion.
    1
  50. +Ylze Tyr Yes we will essentially "run out of education". We already lack professors and dorm rooms. When you increase enrollment but lack professors and dorms or classrooms then you have to build more building and hire more professors. Or pay current professors more for doing more. That money has to come from somewhere, so it comes from higher tuition. Also it has to deal with that colleges can raise tuition and not worry about losing customers due to the consumers can simply pull out a loan. As I said you remove consumer/seller negotiation and put a third party in the mix. Also I am not promoting the idea that only the richest get an education. You can get a better education at smaller, cheaper schools. Lack of loans and grants will push students there meaning they get a better education. "other countries have figured out ways to provide everybody with higher education" Well actually no, plus the US is far superior in their university system. One example is us having the highest percentage of international students.
    1
  51. +Ylze Tyr And here is phase three, you calling me an idiot with zero justification. It isn't so much employee wages, it is how they get insurance. They get a generic plan from their employer as opposed to a plan that suits them. And they are unable to let insurance companies compete in giving them an affordable plan because they just get the plan their employer offers. This also hurts because if someone changes jobs they have to change healthcare plans. If they are older they have a harder time getting insurance due to pre-existing conditions.......sound familiar? Yes high tuition is due to the federal government with their loan program. I showed you that with references. Of course you deny them. I can always give more but as I said we are in phase three now, you stomping your feet saying I am an idiot. This happens all the time. I say something and give justification for it and break it down. You then end up saying "you are wrong and an idiot". As I said, you act like a kid. It is Monday, don't be late for school.
    1
  52. +Ylze Tyr I told you why you have to get insurance from your employer, it is because the payroll tax made getting raises hard. Businesses worked around it with healthcare benefits which were 100% tax free. That meant that employees could not let insurance companies compete so prices will go down. That is why it is expensive. It makes complete sense, just not to you because you can't even pass introductory economics. The ACA is also leading to higher cost now with insurance. Once again a federal government program making things worse http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=0 There is the source, now here comes phase three of the debate of you stomping your feet saying "you're wrong and an idiot".
    1
  53. +Ylze Tyr If we had single payer our system will be worse. Vermont can't even get single payer. Really you need to do some research.
    1
  54. +WiseSloth ForBernieSanders Bernie is going to lose. His political tactics does not attract moderates.
    1
  55. +Beaker Smith He is not a moderate, he is an extremist.
    1
  56. +Ylze Tyr Bernie's policies are extreme. Alexander Hamilton (he was a founder father and the 1st US Secretary of Treasury, I know history is a weak subject for you like all subjects) would not have supported him. Hilary Clinton is winning most of the polls. Bernie is winning on focus groups but Hilary is winning overall. Here, i will cite a liberal source as well http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/post-democratic-debate-poll-clinton-wins_5620e1dbe4b06462a13b948b Bernie is winning a lot of polls from areas such as Facebook, but that is because the very emotional and thus irrational are voting in those polls. Moderates don't act that way.
    1
  57. +Kang5030 But they would have never supported what Bernie supports or even FDR. You need to relearn history. There was a reason why there was never a federal income tax until 1913 when multiple attempts were tried. Hilary has won several polls. If you want to look at FDR's policies you have to realize that he, by his policies turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  58. +megagrey A over 100% increase in the min. wage is extreme. That will be devastating to employment.
    1
  59. +Kang5030 Even over few years that is still an over 100% increase. The min. wage throughout history has been small and increases have been few and far between and have been small. That is why in the grand scale there have been on negative effects. As is it is a small variable thus any negative effects gets lost in the statistical noise. When you look at selective groups, such as teenagers, you see unemployment go up when the min. wage go up. The min. wage is at an all time high (and always will be if you keep increasing it). Teenage unemployment is high as well. The purchasing power of the min. wage means nothing. The min. wage is what it is, it is the min. wage. The actual min. wage is $0. If you are not worth the price floor arbitrarily set by the government then you don't get a job. The term "livable wage" is completely subjective and doesn't mean anything. If you want to talk about the private sector you have to consider that less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. The average hourly earnings is over $24/hr. After a year around half of min. wage workers get a raise. Business do pay more if one, the worker is worth it, and two, if the business can afford it.
    1
  60. +Kang5030 If the min. wage was not bad than why not $50/hr? The answer is that even some of the most liberal politicians understand at that point it will be a strong variable and thus will have a large negative effect. You are talking about a $15/hr min. wage. Myself, as a TA in grad. school earn around $30,000/yr if you include tuition waiver, insurance and a stipend. That is around $15/hr for 40 hours a week (I work way more than that). So you feel that a fast food worker deserves as much as graduate students?
    1
  61. +megagrey A $15/hr would be. Historically the min. wage, when compared to the entire economy, has been low. Any increase on it has been low. A 100% increase will be devastating. Myself and my colleagues in graduate school earn the equivalent of $15/hr if you consider a 40 hour work week (we work far more than that) and the stipend, tuition waiver and insurance. So you feel a fast food worker should get paid the same as a graduate student?
    1
  62. +megagrey Ok, so someone who is doing a job that does not require a high school diploma deserve as much money as someone pursuing their PhD?
    1
  63. +Beaker Smith The US actually spends more money trying to keep peace. There is always conflict in the world. We spend a lot of money trying to keep peace and establish good relations with other countries. More conflict has been settle off the field then on.
    1
  64. +Kang5030 It is an arbitrary number. Wages are a price, and like any price, such as the price of a TV, food, a computer, milk, etc., it is determined by the market. You can't tie the min. wage to inflation. Saying you can is saying that everything inflates. If that is so then why aren't smart phones over $4000? A brick cell phone in the 80s, when adjusted for inflation according to the CPI cost that much. My smart phone cost less than $100. Why didn't the price of cell phones go up? Same with labor. Why are blockbuster employees now worth $0? You can't tie everything to inflation. Some price inflate, some go down, some stay the same. My payment is on par with other graduate students at other graduate programs across the country. I manage quit well with bills and what not. McDonalds does not have to hire those people. It is not McDonald's fault that their workers refuse to better themselves. And saying wage slavery is being shallow. Slaves were forced to work, they don't have to take the job. "If you work 40 hours a week, you should not be unable to afford basic necessities" Which is what? A room or a 3 bedroom house? A car? What type of car? What type of food? From my $1800/month stipend I am able to build up a savings. It requires work. "We've been through this over and over each time the minimum wage has come up and been expanded. Every single time, the net effect on jobs was negligible but economic activity increased. We wouldn't still have it if it didn't work." When you look at select groups you find that when the min. wage increases so does unemployment. Those groups are teenagers and those with low skills. That is because they have been out priced out of the market. You don't see it on the grand scale because it has been small compared to the overall economy. It gets lost in the statistical noise. But if you were to raise it up to $15/hr then several jobs will be lost, especially in low income areas in the midwest.
    1
  65. +Beaker Smith Drone strikes are a problem due to our incompetent commander in chief in Obama. What we do as a nation in the military is that we train other armies to establish peace and develop a strong relationships. Our only main threat are terrorists. We are not going around fighting other countries. Also if you notice when we pull out of the middle east problems come back and other countries refuse to defend themselves. We develop strong relationships helping out other countries.
    1
  66. +Beaker Smith Nothing wrong with staying ahead in the game with technology. We don't turn our own cities into war zones, some of our idiot citizens do that. As an American I don't want the federal government touching education and healthcare. It does already and it has created the mess it is right now.
    1
  67. +Kang5030 It is not my fault that people refuse to better themselves. If that is the only job they can get then they need to rethink their life. Low skilled jobs are entry level jobs or part time jobs for people for supplemental income. The play a role in society. If you are trying to make a living off of it then you have problems. A $15/hr min. wage will lead to high unemployment, especially in rural midwestern towns. They simply can't afford higher wages. Businesses can't. It is called math. The only way they can if by cutting hours or by raising prices. If you break it down there is not one good reason to even have a min. wage. Read Paul Krugman's AP Economics book, he outlines how prices setting such as price floors and ceilings don't work. Consider this,, what will happen to the car industry if the government set a min. price on cars at $10,000? The same is with labor. It makes no economic sense to raise the price floor. All it does is hurt those who need help the most.
    1
  68. +Beaker Smith Local and state government. The private sectors. .Individuals as they get older. Parents. You don't need the government to be educated. The fact you think we do is scary.
    1
  69. +Beaker Smith I bet in your country it is rather small and thus you don't deal with the issues we have in the US. At the local and state level you have more control of government and you can see if tax dollars are being spent well. And just because something is private doesn't mean only the rich will get it. We have several things that are private that even the poor get. You don't have a right to others' services. Plus, with education while public education can be great is can also be destructive. Without government control it can be indoctrination. It seems like they did it to you with your false idea that you need the government to be educated and you somehow have a right to it. "Oh shit, maybe you don't understand that the federal government provides taxpayer dollars to state and local government." For the most part that is not true. States raise their own taxes. In some cases the federal government gives states tax dollars but in is not much in the big picture, and only if states implement certain laws. Most funding for public education, for example, is by the states.
    1
  70. +Beaker Smith I agree we should have taxpayers decide by vote in how money is spent. But I want my vote to matter. At the federal level my voice is small. At the state and local level my voice is a lot stronger. That is why I am opposed to the federal government getting involved. That is the idea of state rights. "Can you provide examples of services provided by private companies to which all poor people can easily get access?" Easy, cars. Cell phones. Computers. Dishwashers in apartments. That is just to name a few. "I see that the taxes raised within the very area of the city people live is all they get. So, poor areas get less resources and a worse education. Very sad. This is so short sighted. I imagine this is something a person like Saunders would change." How do you change it? Do you force people to work in areas of low income?
    1
  71. +Beaker Smith Poor people in the US have it better than the vast majority of the world, as in over 3/4 of the world. Poor people in the US have it better than the poor in a lot of European countries. We are just spoiled. "You pool resources and provide the same education to everyone? Sorry, are you serious? " And how do you provide it? How do you get it to them? There are people that have to send their kids to hour long bus rides to get to school? Have you ever been to a small, rural town?
    1
  72. +Vote Bernie Sanders 2016 You can't have crony capitalism without an overpowering government.
    1
  73. +Beaker Smith Yes I have dealt with the government and I know how government programs work. In the US at the federal level programs like that become inefficient. The level of bureaucracy and diversity is huge. I have no problem with smaller more local government running programs like that because programs are ran better and people get their money's worth.
    1
  74. +Beaker Smith Plus I doubt you been to rural areas. As I said, how do you get the resource out to the rural areas? How do you deal with the lack of teachers? A lot of small schools lack a teacher the knows calculus. A lot of small schools have only one science teacher that only knows biology, but not physics. You may say they should hire a physics teacher. Well when the student body of the school is only around 100 or so students, that would not be efficient. How do you deal with the lack of educational resources? How do you get a child to school when they live 45 miles away and a blizzard hits one week? It isn't as easy as pooling money together and spreading it equally. I can tell you have never worked or dealt with the government.
    1
  75. +Beaker Smith How were those teachers and doctors brought in? Were they forced? What if no teacher or doctor wants to go there? Or the only teacher, say science teacher you can bring in only knows biology. How do you teach physics? I have experience that. I grew up around rural areas. That is what they run into. People don't want to live in rural areas. The only way to attract teachers there or doctors is to pay them more where at that point it becomes a waste. I have experience in this, you don't. Nice try though.
    1
  76. +Beaker Smith I didn't divert from the topic. Where are the teachers going to come from? You say you have no problem with teachers going there. Ok, how do you attract a teacher to work at a school in a rural area? In an areas of less resources and lower income students? If you do this pool that you are talking about then we have to hold every teacher accountable on equal levels. That means that rural teacher will have to have their students do just as well as that teacher in the city in that rich neighborhood. How do you manage that? This isn't that simple and the pure fact that you can't see how they are connect shows you don't even know the topic.
    1
  77. +Beaker Smith Rural areas are typically of low crime. Even if you were to fund those areas more people won't want to move there due to lack of growth. Most crime exist in urban areas and they are schools that already have more funding due to our Title I program. Working in public education I see low income schools having more resources due to Title I. It doesn't help. In rural areas people that live there are typically not, as one will say "book smart". Not saying they are dumb, they are very intelligent in their own way. But they can get away without teaching certain subjects due to lack of teachers (such as AP classes). If one wants to extend their education they have options outside past high school such as JuCo's or community colleges if they don't get into a larger, 4 year college.
    1
  78. +Beaker Smith We have school boards as well. " They tell the teachers where they are going to work" What is they don't don't want to work in that particular area? That is one point I am making. You can't just force people to live in an area they don't want to. In a lot of rural areas you have kids who are first generation high school graduates. How can you hold those teachers accountable if they are teaching kids that have parents who don't even have a high school degree? Or you must be one of those "blame the teacher" individuals. I assume you have never been a teacher. Put it this way, who as the advantage as a teacher? The one teacher who is at a school of higher income students teaching AP history or the one trying to teach physical science to sophomores in a Title I school who has parents that can't even speak english? This isn't pretty basic stuff as you said. It is a challenge that our educational system faces everyday but those in charge choose to ignore.
    1
  79. +Beaker Smith We believe in allowing people to live where they want regardless of what job they take. While someone can move from one school to another within the same district, asking them to travel an hour or more to work is not productive. In order to justify that you have to pay them more somehow where at that point it becomes a waste in some cases. How tax dollars are distributed is based on what society wants. It is mostly on needs. How you determine that is by keeping it as local as possible. Why should someone in FL pay for education in CA? Both states are ran differently and deal with different issues. The same with with WY compared to New York. It is very complex and it isn't as simple as taking money from one source and giving it to another. You also have to realize that when you do that you run into the trouble of those in rich areas revolting in different methods. One will be increasing donations to their local schools making them even more superior. This is a problem that has happened into my home state. The richer schools got richer and moved up while the rural schools actually got worse. My high school was in a rural town and programs have gotten worse. For example in sports and band. The state was trying to break up the larger schools to prevent them from getting larger and moving up in classes. The larger schools said they would just simply go independent and the parents said they will all go private if that were to happen. You have to factor that in as well.
    1
  80. +Beaker Smith The private sector is different. The private sector is not forcing someone to take a job at a place they don't want to. If they do then they get paid extra. What you are suggesting in the public sector is forcing others to take a job far away without extra pay.
    1
  81. +Dyvim Tvar You are the one that wants to pay CEOs $50/hr which will accomplish nothing. Look at Walmart for example. The top 6 CEOs earn a combined $77 million a year. If you were to take that money and spread it evenly amongst the 525,000 workers who earn less than $25,000 a year they will make an extra $148 a year. That is it. Now if you were to tax them you will not generate enough revenue to pay off our current deficit. The money is not there.
    1
  82. +Dyvim Tvar The CEO of Walmart is not Michael Duke, it is Douglas McMillon. He earns around $20 million, not $35 million. Now how many people does he employ? As I said, Walmart has around 525,000 employees that earn less than $25,000/yr. So I ask you, what do you gain by forcing CEOs to earn less?
    1
  83. +Beaker Smith Then that is their problem. There are a lot harder jobs that pay less out there.
    1