Cyber bullying - fact or fiction? (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

Ironically, I just read this article and it's a great read that expands on the points I was making on income distribution and it's relation to societal failure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/society-doomed_n_5001032.html

Eventually, society will fall at the current rate we are experiencing until even the top chain will find their money worthless until a balance can be restored. People will suffer, many will die. That is, unless people are will to change. That's a much harder pill to swallow.

"A 2012 study from the journal American Sociological Review shows that the income share of the top 1 percent of Americans grew rapidly after 1980 - from 10 percent to 23.5% in 2007. An increase of 135%."

How does that not indicate a problem? Less money for the lower class means less money spent and circulating back to the upper class. This system will fail.

 

[Bladerunner]

Bladerunner, you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say that liberals/socialists want something for nothing and should get a job. Then you say that most of the very rich are really liberal/socialist. Do you really believe that Bill gates wants something for nothing and if so why does he make large charitable donations.

I believe the world would be a better place if people would help each other and treat each other as they would want to be treated themselves.

First it is easy to donate large sums of money when you are really rich. It is a little harder to donate a small amount of time or money when you have little.

Second, Bill Gates worked for his money. Back then, I was programming on IBM and Tandy systems. They were fighting to be #1 OS and look who won!.

Most people who are filthy rich become liberal in their thinking and actions. when you become liberal, you in some cases unwittingly start believing in a socialist agenda. Money is not the answer to everything.

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

The problem is the distribution of wealth. It's far from balanced how it was 50 years ago. Do you honestly think that wouldn't cause a market issue in the future? CEOs are making multi-millions while their employees, the people helping them making their money, can barely survive without a dual income. 50 years ago, that wasn't the cause. A two-bedroom living situation could be afforded on minimum wage. I DARE you to try that today.

Just because the CEOs are making multi-millions does not have anything to do with the wages of their employees. You talking about wealth re-distribution. Let use the hamburger joint as an example. The employee is making minimum wage yet there are those that say the hamburger joint should pay them more. Down the street is another hamburger joint (different name) and the employees there make the same minimum wage. Now if we raise the minimum wage up at the first joint, the cost of the hamburgers will go up and this extra expense will be passed on to the customer.. Customers, decide to go to the other hamburger joint to save money and an employee loses his job at the first hamburger joint. Why? because of supply and demand. You pay employee not what they think they are worth by what the product they are making is worth. This example is a entry level position usually for kids in school and maybe other transient persons. They should be increasing their skill level which will increase their wages.

The bottom line is, the hourly employee did not help the owner to make the company anything unless you have input at the top. In this case you get a golden parachute for actually helping the company to become larger and more profitable.

Consider this: Japan's top 100 CEOs make an average of a little more than USD $1 million per year. Their base employees make an average of 1/15th of that, around 65,000 USD on average. US top 100 CEOs make an average of $15 million USD. Their base employees make around 1/357th. That means their base employees make less than the base employees in Japan, with their CEOs making 15 times as much. 50 years ago, we were closer to Japan's numbers.

Who cares? Most of the people that have jobs knew what their wage was fgoing to be when they were hired. You are suggesting that the owners share their wealth with them. This in itself is socialism. Everybody work and get a piece of the pie. But, then you have slackers who don't work as much as the other fellow. Thereby, the fellow that works the most should get the most. How many hours does a CEO put in a week. 60, 70, 80, 90 Hours. ;Try this with an employee of yours. Give them a large raise, and tell them that they have to work 80 or more hours per week. They will take it and in a three month period they will be shouting that they deserve more because of what they are doing. It will never end because you cannot justify long hours, little time with the family, etc with a large sum of money. One other thing; think about the different job description of the CEO and the regular employee. The employee is building widgets one at a time. The CEO is making sure the employee has the materials they need to make widgets, setting up customers to buy their widgets (keeping the employee in a job) and on and on............

As far as the "go out and get a job" argument that these Conservative Capitalists are always shouting, that's a stupid argument. SOMEONE has to flip your lazy-ass's burgers! Why shouldn't they get paid for their hard work too? That's my two cents.

See above, but yes, they are getting paid what the job is worth. Let them quit and twenty others will be in line to get their job. As an employer, I owe the employee nothing more than the wages, raises and benefits I promised them when they took the job. The customer actually pays their wages and if the customer quits paying, I no longer need you.

And obviously I have a career. I also believe in helping those who need it. Not EVERYONE is the lazy who believes in helping others as Fox News wants you to believe. Open your eyes and see it for yourself. People, for the most part, WANT to succeed and don't WANT assistance. Unfortunately, GREED has driven the imbalance in inflation and income so out of balance, they don't have a choice. Is this really not hard to understand?

No liberalism/socialism has caused the imbalance in inflation. Who is artificially keeping the stock market high? Who is artificially keeping the real numbers for unemployment at a low level? Who is artificially keeping inflation at a low level? Who is telling you that your health care insurance was no good and forcibly replace it with an inferior insurance? Who keeps putting us into more debt than all of the last 45 presidents together? Who keeps putting more and more restrictions on SMALL businesses that employee the majority of the people? Ask yourself, WHY are they doing this!!!! Only one answer, They want to bring about socialism for this country. The European Union is already quasi-socialistic and look what it has brought them. They are following the guidelines written by socialist/communist aimed at destroying capitalism within a nation.

Yes, people may want to succeed but they have to work at succeeding, it cannot be handed to them.

p.s. the ones who are getting rich in this 'day and age' is the young people right out of college for they aspire to be stockbrokers, CEOs and upper management. Also, include the very rich whose income originates from the stock market..

A two-bedroom living situation could be afforded on minimum wage. I DARE you to try that today

In this area, a three bedroom 1 1/2 bath cost about $700 per month. That is still high for people with a minimum wage (about $1280/mo) to handle. However, with two people sharing the place, it will afford them the ability to go back to some kind of school in order to better themselves. Then there are those that had rather live in squalor than clock a card but rather collect their foods stamps, welfare and other subsidies. In most cases these people actually eat better than a vast majority of working people. The EBT cards can be used anywhere for just about anything now. Its the socialist way!

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Ironically, I just read this article and it's a great read that expands on the points I was making on income distribution and it's relation to societal failure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/society-doomed_n_5001032.html

Eventually, society will fall at the current rate we are experiencing until even the top chain will find their money worthless until a balance can be restored. People will suffer, many will die. That is, unless people are will to change. That's a much harder pill to swallow.

"A 2012 study from the journal American Sociological Review shows that the income share of the top 1 percent of Americans grew rapidly after 1980 - from 10 percent to 23.5% in 2007. An increase of 135%."

How does that not indicate a problem? Less money for the lower class means less money spent and circulating back to the upper class. This system will fail.

What can I say, your reading card carrying socialist propaganda. If we keep going yes, something is going to give. This is what they want. I ask the questions before , "Who keeps putting more and more restrictions on SMALL businesses that employee the majority of the people?" We are losing jobs at a high rate these days. At the very least, they are becoming part-time jobs. WHY, because of the Obamacare, increases in taxes, Penalites, etc. etc. for the employer. This socialistic government is running many businesses in the ground. Labor Unions , increased minimum wages are other problems that cause the employer to put any plans of expansion on hold, perhaps permanent.

Have a nice day:>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Margaret Thatcher was the root of it all, she initiated the breakdown of the social structure by invoking people to be better than their neighbours..

Scott, invoking people NOT to be better than their neighbours does not work. It was tried many times here in the U.S. in the sixties and early 70's. They were called communes and their ideology was socialism. one for all and all for one. As long as you give people reason for NOT working, your going to be in the same problem you are now over there. By the way, this type of liberalism/socialism in the U.S. was tried back in 1910's, just prior to the great depression.

 

[dan-cat]

WHY, because of the Obamacare,

I run a small business (sole proprietor) and can now afford health insurance for me and my family. Why should the private sector determine who receives treatment through the abomination that is the preexisting condition clause? My wife has been trapped by this bully-boy tactic for the best part of the last ten years. That clause has been taken away now and we are now free to work a little harder to pay for the attainable premiums and deductibles.

 

[dan-cat]

By the way, this type of liberalism/socialism in the U.S. was tried back in 1910's, just prior to the great depression.

Errr the New Deal was a response to the Great Depression.

 

[Dick7Access]

I don’t remember all the details, and don’t have time to research it but the essence of the article was that when the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock were starving it wasn’t from a lack of food. It was that all work, all eat. Well when Pilgrim A decided that he was going to play pickup sticks this week instead of working out in the hot Sun, Pilgrim B said, hey me too. When it finally got down to only Pilgrim Z doing any work the Governor finally said ever man for himself. Then they had enough food. Until reading that article I never did understand why they were starving. Being brought up near that area I knew of all the wild food available.

 

[Bladerunner]

I run a small business (sole proprietor) and can now afford health insurance for me and my family. Why should the private sector determine who receives treatment through the abomination that is the preexisting condition clause? My wife has been trapped by this bully-boy tactic for the best part of the last ten years. That clause has been taken away now and we are now free to work a little harder to pay for the attainable premiums and deductibles.

The pre-existing conditions should have been dealt with years ago as well as allowing competition between insurance companies over state lines much like car insurance in order to lower prices. What I have a problem is the takeover of 1/6 of our economy by the government that has no business in healthcare. If you don't care about the government knowing all about your health then I wish you luck. The very first think one does to bring down capitalism in a nation is to take over the healthcare system. I guess as a liberal you do not see that but you will and the problem with that is , it will probably too late for all of us.

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Errr the New Deal was a response to the Great Depression.

Yes, socialism. Welfare. Bigger government, beginning of the Social security network, subsidies for everything especially the farmer, bigger unions and I agree that unions were needed in some places at this period in time. Look at these categories then and now. See where we are going.

Did you know that the 13 original colonies tried socialism as a government in the beginning? Guess what happen to it.


Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

 

[dan-cat]

The very first think one does to bring down capitalism in a nation is to take over the healthcare system. I guess as a liberal you do not see that but you will and the problem with that is , it will probably too late for all of us.

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

Oh poppycock! Do you realize that the US alongside South Africa are the only 'advanced' nations that do not have a universal healthcare system and South Africa have previously tried to install one. According to your point of view these two nations are the last stalwarts of capitalism. Total nonsense.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The health care issue has been discussed on two other threads devoted to it, but on neither did I get an answer to my questions, here is a post containing it.

I don't want to duck the question but as I have no experience of your system I can't really know, plus I did not get answers to certain questions I asked such as after my wife had been diagnosed with myelofibrosis what effect would that have on an insurance based health cover, would cover have been continued for the 19 years she lived, and would it have covered her later illnesses, heart deases, COPD, and finally breast cancer, her stay in the hospice for palliative care and then medical care at home in her final months.

I believe that our system is best in a civilised sosciety were we care for each other, however it is open to abuse and needs tweaking to cut that down. It should be simple to cut out most of the abuse by foreigners , drunkards and those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, eg obese and smokers.

Brian

This is from the thread socialised medicine
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=229023&highlight=National

 

[Bladerunner]

Oh poppycock! Do you realize that the US alongside South Africa are the only 'advanced' nations that do not have a universal healthcare system and South Africa have previously tried to install one. According to your point of view these two nations are the last stalwarts of capitalism. Total nonsense.

At least for a while longer, the US is (it seems) the last stalwarts of capitalism and freedom. Hey, you got that part down perfectly.


Not sure about SA. I think their government is in disarray since the demise of the Apartheid. To clarify that statementm the Apartheid government was not any good either!


Have a good day :>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

The health care issue has been discussed on two other threads devoted to it, but on neither did I get an answer to my questions, here is a post containing it.

This is from the thread socialised medicine
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=229023&highlight=National

Hello Brian:

First, please accept my sincere condolences for your loss.

Second, I had not heard about the thread your posted much less the question you ask but I will try an answer it.

Third, the system of socialized medicine you have in your country is almost the same as they have in Canada. I know little about it except that it keeps putting your country in debt and allows the deadbeats, Obese and smokers to affect the people whose taxes are paying for their healthcare. It also affects the kind of healthcare you get. You see we get a lot of people from your country and Canada that come here to get medical procedures they cannot get in your countries. I guess they pay for the procedure themselves. Don't think we take socialized insurance yet.

The healthcare system in the US prior to Obamacare was based upon what you personally needed. Unfortunately, the insurance lobby had dissuaded the politicians to leave alone, pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits, competition between insurance companies over all 50 states, etc. These could have been corrected without hijacking the entire healthcare system. But now we have Obamacare at least for a little while longer.

The policies were based upon what type of insurance (pre-natal, etc.) you needed as I stated before. You did not pay for the drunks, obese or smokers. You did pay if you were in a high risk category. Under the ObamaCare (not affordable in most cases), you pay for all of those high risk people. You pay for those that don't have insurance. You pay for all those drunks and Obese people.

To answer you question, I don't know! It depends upon a lot of answers to a lot of questions. What would have been her lifetime limit under a user type insurance? What were the actual cost of the medical care incurred? Were the laws constructed in a way as to not enable the insurance company to drop a person simply because of high use prior to the policies life time limit.Would your country have a lifeline policy to catch people who insurance had run out or could not afford. Ours is called Medicaid! These previous question represent only an a small number that could be asked.

One last thought:

You said:I "It should be simple to cut out most of the abuse by foreigners , drunkards and those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, obese and smokers."

It will not be simply and most likely never done. Why? Politics. These people are voters and the politicians can get their vote relatively easy and they will not throw that away. Almost guaranteed.

Again, I am sorry for you loss but the answers to your question at best would be guesswork. Your wife's healthcare appears to have been good. Thank God for that.

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner

p.s. this was written prior to me reading the thread you speak of, but I will read it.

 

[dan-cat]

At least for a while longer, the US is (it seems) the last stalwarts of capitalism and freedom. Hey, you got that part down perfectly.

I'll let the members of the remaining industrialized nations rebuke you on this. I'm too ashamed to do it.

 

[Vassago]

Bladerunner

Here we go again. The middle class blaming the poor for victimizing them when the reality is it's the rich victimizing them. Go ahead, keep watching CNN and Fox and believing everything you see in the corporate media owned by the banks. That's what they want you to do.

You make it sound like it's a bad idea to pay your employees more if your company is more profitable. Why would that be bad? Costco seems to have pretty good success doing it considering they have a lower turnover rate than Walmart, are a much smaller store, and have more profit per store. As far as having people not doing their share? Get rid of them! Noone said they had to get paid too.

Your analigies make no sense. Are you seriously stating that with the shift of the top 1% owning nearly 25% of the country's wealth, there isn't something wrong with that? I don't understand. I'm not saying any particular party is to blame, but it's obvious the people with the money are. They can choose to stop hoarding it. They are making their own money worthless.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Reminds me of that TV show Revolution, on that one of the characters, was a rich Bill Gates type of character, but after the event that occurred, he was just as equal as the tramp on the street, his money was worthless...

Greed, and corporate Greed is a real menace, it is widening the Rich Poor divide daily... where will it end... another world war, that's where, it only needs another ego maniac like Hitler and a country in dire recession and bingo... light the touch paper and step back...and lets face it currently there are quite a few candidates...

 

[Vassago]

I'm already seeing the barter system come back into play. People are getting fed up with it. To the upper class outt here: when the barter system spreads, you'll no longer see profits. I bet you'll wish you paid your employees their fair share then.

 

[scott-atkinson]

This is an interesting article regarding Actions being taken to combat Cyber Bullying

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/23/secret-cyberbullying/

 

[Bladerunner]

You keep harping on Bill Gates as your poster child for greed. As far as I can tell he is donating his vast fortune to charity? Is that a bad thing? Also most of us use Microsoft products everyday but we do not have to. There are Google apps, Linux, and more. I think envy really needs to be addressed.

Agree---only I call it socialist jealousy

Have a nice day :>)
Bladerunner