Social Security question, was asked to start a new thread on it.

[Endus]

Except, we've seen it with out own eyes. We've seen in the Great Recession, where people went months and months, without getting back to work, Then, once those unemployment benefits ran out, they were suddenly employed.

The data does not support that. At all. Unemployment spiked up rapidly, and slowly declined from that peak. There was no "sudden" return to work.

Worse, the data on the number of job seekers for each job followed a similar trend; there were people actively seeking work throughout.

You're just lying about easily-verifiable data, which actually contradicts your claims.





Get the hell outta here with made-up nonsense that is contradicted by the data available. It flatly did not happen the way you describe.

The simple fact is, the more people who don't produce, the heavier a burden it is on the rest of society. Sure, if 10% aren't pulling their weight, it means that the other 90% have an 11.1% increase in burden, on average. Now, that's a lot, but it's something that could be justified. In the case of the current state of things, (we have about 25% who are the "burden" so to speak. That increases our personal burden by 33.3%. By 2050, it's 2:1, and the burden is increased by 50%.

The idea that you need people to "pull their weight" is a lie. The economy does not require full employment. The economy cannot provide full employment. There is a certain amount of weight that can be pulled (the total demand for labor), and only a certain number of spots on the ropes to pull it (the total number of positions available), and if the weight's moving and all the spots are filled, the problem's solved. There's nothing for those left over to do. The labor force participation rate has never cracked 68%, in the entire time that it's been tracked (the late '40s);



Not only is the variance relatively small (the entire range is from ~58% to ~67%), but there's no reason to see the high point of the 80s/90s as some kind of "normal". That was the outlier. Nor is there any reason to think higher LFPRs are "better", in the first place. Nor is there anything the unemployed can do to improve on this; the LFPR is dropping and unemployment is dropping alongside it. Jobs aren't going unfilled, there just aren't jobs to be had.

You're predicating your entire worldview on a child's fiction, one that does not represent reality in any way whatsoever. It's just another lie.

[Jtbrig7390]

Your last comment proves my point. You want to "eat the fucken rich" but you also want them to take care of you.

Yes eat the fucken rich. No person should have much money as Jeff Fucken Bezos does. He gives nothing back and yet could buy a fucken country if he wanted to.

I want them to pay back after making profits off of slave labor.

[Machismo]

The data does not support that. At all. Unemployment spiked up rapidly, and slowly declined from that peak. There was no "sudden" return to work.

Worse, the data on the number of job seekers for each job followed a similar trend; there were people actively seeking work throughout.

You're just lying about easily-verifiable data, which actually contradicts your claims.





Get the hell outta here with made-up nonsense that is contradicted by the data available. It flatly did not happen the way you describe.



The idea that you need people to "pull their weight" is a lie. The economy does not require full employment. The economy cannot provide full employment. There is a certain amount of weight that can be pulled, and only a certain number of spots on the ropes to pull it, and if the weight's moving and all the spots are filled, the problem's solved. There's nothing for those left over to do.

You're predicating your entire worldview on a child's fiction, one that does not represent reality in any way whatsoever. It's just another lie.

I never said it requires full employment. What you want it to do, is to ensure everyone is taken care of, regardless of whether they contribute a fucking thing. Regardless of the number of people working, the output needs to hit that mark, or as you like to point out, people suffer. The less people you have working, the more they have to work to hit that mark.

[Endus]

Yes eat the fucken rich. No person should have much money as Jeff Fucken Bezos does. He gives nothing back and yet could buy a fucken country if he wanted to.

I want them to pay back after making profits off of slave labor.

He also clearly doesn't even understand the origin of the term. It isn't some current-era bit of hyperbolic edginess. It's a very specific reference to a very particular speech, and it wasn't presented as an attack, but as the necessary outcome of starving a population; "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." The entire point is that a population won't put up with that kind of inequality, particularly when those in poverty vastly outnumber those hoarding wealth. It's an unsustainable premise.

If you have a problem with the phrase, take it up with 18th-Century Rousseau.

[Machismo]

Yes eat the fucken rich. No person should have much money as Jeff Fucken Bezos does. He gives nothing back and yet could buy a fucken country if he wanted to.

I want them to pay back after making profits off of slave labor.

Why, so you can have more free money?

He created one of the biggest companies on the planet, so he gives plenty "back," whether you like it, or not. What do you "give back?"

I'm trying to wrap my head around the irony of a person with no job, who creates nothing, complaining that the guy who created the biggest business on the planet, isn't giving back, and is pushing slave labor.

[Jtbrig7390]

He created one of the biggest companies on the planet

And he did it with the 500k he got from mommy and daddy and is now profiting off of slave labor. But I guess you are the type of person who think's its ok that people have to literally work themselves to death for $15 a hour pulling 40+ hours a week AND STILL NOT MAKE ENOUGH FOR BILLS.

Fucken bootlickers...

- - - Updated - - -

He also clearly doesn't even understand the origin of the term. It isn't some current-era bit of hyperbolic edginess. It's a very specific reference to a very particular speech, and it wasn't presented as an attack, but as the necessary outcome of starving a population; "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." The entire point is that a population won't put up with that kind of inequality, particularly when those in poverty vastly outnumber those hoarding wealth. It's an unsustainable premise.

If you have a problem with the phrase, take it up with 18th-Century Rousseau.

Exactly....

[Endus]

I never said it requires full employment. What you want it to do, is to ensure everyone is taken care of, regardless of whether they contribute a fucking thing.

I just want to point out to our audience that your direst of accusations against me that that I want "to ensure everyone is taken care of." How dare I!?

You're right, I don't put a price tag on basic human empathy. So terrible and outrageous, apparently.

Regardless of the number of people working, the output needs to hit that mark, or as you like to point out, people suffer. The less people you have working, the more they have to work to hit that mark.

What "mark"? You're making shit up again.

If we ignore the pandemic data for a moment, since that's a known factor that is having an independent effect on employment and the economy for a range of reasons, leading up to this we had falling LFPRs, and falling unemployment figures, and GPD growth that's entirely within normal ranges after dipping briefly during the Great Recession;



Germany makes a convenient comparison, since it makes it clear that nothing the USA's experienced in this has been exceptional or unique, either. Slight dips for the Great Recession, otherwise, basically constant growth.

You are, again, making shit up that is not backed by reality. The American economy is "hitting the mark" with a 63ish% labor force participation rate, and there aren't jobs to try and employ the remaining third of the country who aren't currently working, even if they were available to work, which they aren't. There's literally not work available for them to do. All removing social support systems would do is promote suffering and hardship, on the vulnerable, while providing no possibility of economic gain. Indeed, it would likely collapse the economy, as consumers have less and less spending capacity due to the lost support.

[Machismo]

And he did it with the 500k he got from mommy and daddy and is now profiting off of slave labor. But I guess you are the type of person who think's its ok that people have to literally work themselves to death for $15 a hour pulling 40+ hours a week AND STILL NOT MAKE ENOUGH FOR BILLS.

Fucken bootlickers...

- - - Updated - - -


Exactly....

Stop with the slave labor bullshit, his employees are paid.

You don't work, so I guess you may not understand. Working 40 hours a week is pretty fucking normal.

$15 an hour is 31k a year. It's not great, but it's not terrible. It's way more than you make not doing anything at all.

[Jtbrig7390]

Stop with the slave labor bullshit, his employees are paid.

You don't work, so I guess you may not understand. Working 40 hours a week is pretty fucking normal.

$15 an hour is 31k a year. It's not great, but it's not terrible. It's way more than you make not doing anything at all.

When working 40 hours a week doesn't pay for your basic needs, Its fucken slave labor.

But I wouldn't expect a bootlicker to understand that. 31k a year divided by 12 is 2583.33 a month and that's before tax. So yes its fucken slave wages.

[Machismo]

I just want to point out to our audience that your direst of accusations against me that that I want "to ensure everyone is taken care of." How dare I!?

You're right, I don't put a price tag on basic human empathy. So terrible and outrageous, apparently.



What "mark"? You're making shit up again.

If we ignore the pandemic data for a moment, since that's a known factor that is having an independent effect on employment and the economy for a range of reasons, leading up to this we had falling LFPRs, and falling unemployment figures, and GPD growth that's entirely within normal ranges after dipping briefly during the Great Recession;



Germany makes a convenient comparison, since it makes it clear that nothing the USA's experienced in this has been exceptional or unique, either. Slight dips for the Great Recession, otherwise, basically constant growth.

You are, again, making shit up that is not backed by reality. The American economy is "hitting the mark" with a 63ish% labor force participation rate, and there aren't jobs to try and employ the remaining third of the country who aren't currently working, even if they were available to work, which they aren't. There's literally not work available for them to do. All removing social support systems would do is promote suffering and hardship, on the vulnerable, while providing no possibility of economic gain. Indeed, it would likely collapse the economy, as consumers have less and less spending capacity due to the lost support.

Once again, if people just don't want to work, you want to take care of them. How noble... or it would be, if your goal wasn't to have other people pay for it. You didn't think I knew you'd latch onto that sentence? That's the point. All of this is about pushing massive socialism, at the expense of other dudes.

GDP doesn't matter, in this regard. The issue isn't that productivity is good, the issue is that people are simply living off the work of others, due to their own selfishness and laziness. You may not have an issue with this (because you want someone else to pay for it), but I do.

As for that "price tag" the problem is always the same, someone else is picking up the tab.

- - - Updated - - -

When working 40 hours a week doesn't pay for your basic needs, Its fucken slave labor.

But I wouldn't expect a bootlicker to understand that. 31k a year divided by 12 is 2583.33 a month and that's before tax. So yes its fucken slave wages.

And I'm willing to bet you gladly shop at those laces that have "slave labor."

Don't you?

And also, those "slaves" are quite literally supporting you, while you do no work at all.

[Jtbrig7390]

And I'm willing to bet you gladly shop at those laces that have "slave labor."

Don't you?

People need shoes and food, that doesn't change where it comes from. Its almost like the poor don't fucken choose to be poor. Slave Labor is still Slave Labor and Slave Wages are still Slave Wages, It doesn't matter what it provides. What made it is still the same.

You also don't realize but you actually just supported exactly what I have been saying. People are forced to deal with it because the options are to accept slave wages or roll over and die.

[Machismo]

People need shoes and food, that doesn't change where it comes from. Its almost like the poor don't fucken choose to be poor. Slave Labor is still Slave Labor and Slave Wages are still Slave Wages, It doesn't matter what it provides. What made it is still the same.

I'll take that as a yes.

So, that means you support that "slavery" and are admitting to being the very "bootlicker" you claim me to be.

Man, that signature of yours is getting more and more ironic.

[Endus]

Once again, if people just don't want to work, you want to take care of them. How noble... or it would be, if your goal wasn't to have other people pay for it.

That's just an empty lie. You're back to resorting to character attacks, to deflect from the pack of lies you tried to tell that are contradicted by literally any data anyone cares to glance at.

You didn't think I knew you'd latch onto that sentence? That's the point. All of this is about pushing massive socialism, at the expense of other dudes.

Oh noes, socialism.

Fear the possibility that collective action could serve society's interests! OOoooOOooOoo!

Jesus wept, get some talking points that weren't penned by a rabid McCarthy back in the 1950s.

GDP doesn't matter, in this regard.

. . . What?

That's . . . the total productivity. Literally the one measure of the value produced by the nation's workforce. You just don't want to talk about it because it proves your imaginary fables to be false.

The issue isn't that productivity is good, the issue is that people are simply living off the work of others, due to their own selfishness and laziness. You may not have an issue with this (because you want someone else to pay for it), but I do.

So? This is the question you can't answer. You don't like it, because you prefer the alternative.

And the alternative is to choose to watch people suffer and eventually die from preventable hardship. I get that the cruelty there is the point of your worldview, I really do.

It's just not a convincing dystopia that anyone else is gonna want to back. As much as you try and make up stories about some hypothetical "victimhood" for the still-super-rich who might be marginally less super-rich if I got my dastardly way, you're arguing for actual pain and suffering by those most vulnerable. That's your stated goal. It isn't to boost productivity. It isn't to protect the nation's economy. It's just to hold up a magnifying glass and see how many ants you can burn to death.

[Jtbrig7390]

I'll take that as a yes.

So, that means you support that "slavery" and are admitting to being the very "bootlicker" you claim me to be.

Man, that signature of yours is getting more and more ironic.

And your stance is clearly support the slave labor/wages or roll over and die. Not only do you not understand what Eat The Rich means, You also don't understand what a Bootlicker is if you are accusing me of being one.

Edit: As for my emote its from BL2.

[Machismo]

That's just an empty lie. You're back to resorting to character attacks, to deflect from the pack of lies you tried to tell that are contradicted by literally any data anyone cares to glance at.



Oh noes, socialism.

Fear the possibility that collective action could serve society's interests! OOoooOOooOoo!

Jesus wept, get some talking points that weren't penned by a rabid McCarthy back in the 1950s.



. . . What?

That's . . . the total productivity. Literally the one measure of the value produced by the nation's workforce. You just don't want to talk about it because it proves your imaginary fables to be false.



So? This is the question you can't answer. You don't like it, because you prefer the alternative.

And the alternative is to choose to watch people suffer and eventually die from preventable hardship. I get that the cruelty there is the point of your worldview, I really do.

It's just not a convincing dystopia that anyone else is gonna want to back. As much as you try and make up stories about some hypothetical "victimhood" for the still-super-rich who might be marginally less super-rich if I got my dastardly way, you're arguing for actual pain and suffering by those most vulnerable. That's your stated goal. It isn't to boost productivity. It isn't to protect the nation's economy. It's just to hold up a magnifying glass and see how many ants you can burn to death.

The issue isn't total productivity, but who is bearing the burden of that productivity. If less people work, because society will simply cover them, then those workers have to produce more per man.

My alternative is to make it well known that they need to be able to plan for the future, or they will be left to their own devices. It's no different than watching someone smoking 2 packs a day, while also doing heroin. At some point, I'm not going to want to keep paying their rent.

- - - Updated - - -

And your stance is clearly support the slave labor/wages or roll over and die. Not only do you not understand what Eat The Rich means, You also don't understand what a Bootlicker is if you are accusing me of being one.

Edit: As for my emote its from BL2.

Don't you also support it?

It would seem you're still gladly licking that boot, you just want to complain about how it tastes while demanding more boot.

"Why is Bezos so evil!!! Man, I need to order some more shit, it's Prime Day!!!"

My stance is one of personal responsibility, and accountability. Sure, it may seem heartless, but I'll gladly argue it's not more heartless than deciding to simply take money from others to pay for all the shit you want. People are under the illusion that socialism is gentle and generous, when it's every bit as selfish as they claim capitalism to be.

You want to raise SS benefits... then expect some resistance. You ant to raise benefits, while putting the entirety of the new burden onto others... that's pure selfishness right there.

[Jtbrig7390]

Don't you also support it?

No I don't support it.

My options are to eat or die and I choose eat. That doesn't mean I support the shit system the food came from. Believe it or not shit isn't as black and white as you make it.

Once again you don't understand what the term Bootlicker means.

[Endus]

The issue isn't total productivity, but who is bearing the burden of that productivity. If less people work, because society will simply cover them, then those workers have to produce more per man.

That isn't how anything works and I've already provided the data that proves that isn't how it works.

You're telling a fantasy story about an imaginary fairy land. You may as well tell me that the economy is run by Harry Potter by charming dragons into pooping gold coins.

Additional data points proving you have no idea what you're talking about;
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...l-basic-income

Flogging people doesn't get them to work jobs that don't exist.
And giving people a basic income has had positive effects on employment, not suppressive ones. Even in the Mincome experiment here in Canada, the only reductions in employment were among students and young single parents, which was a net positive.

My alternative is to make it well known that they need to be able to plan for the future, or they will be left to their own devices. It's no different than watching someone smoking 2 packs a day, while also doing heroin. At some point, I'm not going to want to keep paying their rent.

Like I said; you're just describing the magnifying glass and how much you want to burn that particular ant. All you're expressing here is sadism, and it has no economic basis whatsoever.

[Machismo]

No I don't support it.

My options are to eat or die and I choose eat. That doesn't mean I support the shit system the food came from. Believe it or not shit isn't as black and white as you make it.

Once again you don't understand what the term Bootlicker means.

That's quite literally supporting it. That's no different than Trump voters saying they don't support Trump. Sorry, mate. When you went on your fancy PC, and go to his website to buy shit, that's supporting him, and his company.

If Bezos paid his employees more, he'd have to charge you more... and you'd be able to purchase less. My guess is, if he paid them enough, you'd find a cheaper place to shop, and would find someone who paid their employees less.

[Jtbrig7390]

That's quite literally supporting it.

So once again your stance is eat (support the current system) or die.

Also my computer is far from fancy but I love all these jabs you keep trying to take at me. Yes I have internet, yes I have a computer, I also got a smart phone as well.

Because guess what... POOR PEOPLE CAN HAVE THINGS TOO. If I was forced to live on my own I would have none of it and it all took me awhile (and selling some of my other shit) to get.

But go ahead bootlicker keep making jabs at me, I've heard them all.

[Machismo]

That isn't how anything works and I've already provided the data that proves that isn't how it works.

You're telling a fantasy story about an imaginary fairy land. You may as well tell me that the economy is run by Harry Potter by charming dragons into pooping gold coins.

Additional data points proving you have no idea what you're talking about;
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...l-basic-income

Flogging people doesn't get them to work jobs that don't exist.
And giving people a basic income has had positive effects on employment, not suppressive ones. Even in the Mincome experiment here in Canada, the only reductions in employment were among students and young single parents, which was a net positive.



Like I said; you're just describing the magnifying glass and how much you want to burn that particular ant. All you're expressing here is sadism, and it has no economic basis whatsoever.

The problem with that study, is that they new there was an end, so they opted for stability, while simply gladly accepting the new paycheck.

https://www.businessinsider.com/finl...ailure-2019-12

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549

And not only that, those dollar amounts are considerably less than SS already is.

- - - Updated - - -

So once again your stance is eat (support the current system) or die.

Also my computer is far from fancy but I love all these jabs you keep trying to take at me. Yes I have internet, yes I have a computer, I also got a smart phone as well.

Because guess what... POOR PEOPLE CAN HAVE THINGS TOO. If I was forced to live on my own I would have none of it and it all took me awhile (and selling some of my other shit) to get.

But go ahead bootlicker keep making jabs at me, I've heard them all.

No, my stance is that his business practice clearly doesn't bother you that much. You choose to use his business, because it's cheaper, and more convenient... which is how he got rich in the first place. That's like complaining about slavery in the South, while buying cotton rom slave plantations. It completely undermines your argument.

You can have things, I fully support you buying anything you want, so long as you can afford it, and are saving money for retirement. I highly recommend you be more concerned about the latter. After all, insolvency is only 13 years away.