police force is an exaggeration, even a form of self defense against the more contentious elements of American society or do you contend that there IS police brutality, especially relating to those designated as minorities and/or the disadvantaged and/or disenfranchised?
If this is what you want for your neighborhood, then yes, cops often use excessive force in stopping such actions.
This is the result of police harassment, no jobs, crooked politicians, greedy ignorance of the economic health of its citizenry and frustration that has been building since the beginning of the race riots of 1968. See if you can still ignore this America.
Or just a complete lack of moral structure being instilled into the thugs doing it. And yes, America will ignore it: recognizing that it is only a small minority that are stupid enough to destroy their neighborhood it will be re-built. With many tears, but only from those that actually build rather than mindlessly destroy.
So the answer is to let it go; let them burn the world around us rather than allow our hired protectors to use the only language the rioters understand?
With your non action attitude they have nothing to lose. Your belief in exporting the jobs gives them little hope of attaining anything above a welfare check. It is funny how you don't get this. By taking away their jobs you have taken away their freedom and once again enslaved them. It is very very simple.
But I didn't take away their jobs - you (meaning liberal policies) did. By pricing their labor out of the market.
None of which has anything to do with the question of "excessive violence" by cops in preventing destruction. I assume your answer to to slap their wrist and let them go because the evil capitalists are being mean to them?
"But I didn't take away their jobs - you (meaning liberal policies) did. By pricing their labor out of the market."
Really! Wasn't it you that agreed with the policy of Obamas acceptance and fast tracking the TPP? Does that make you a liberal? You have convenient truths my friend. I on the other hand am dead set against it and would like to see both the TPP not passed and rescinding NAFTA.
Your conservative views on trade agreements coincides with Obamas and by supporting them you are indeed taking away jobs these people you so detest could fill.
Yep, it was me, at least in the overall idea that the world has shrunk and to be competitive means being competitive in the world market.
And who was it applauding unions that caused the TPP to have such an effect? That supports raising American wages (by law whenever possible) to such levels that our workers cannot possibly compete in the world market even after factoring in tremendous shipping costs? (I just read that American companies will now ship chickens to China where they will be processed and shipped back).
But what does any of that have to do with excessive police force? Or will you now claim that excessively high minimum wages results in riots by those earning it?
I won't argue your point of competing in a global market. You are totally right that the wages paid American workers reflects in competitive pricing of export items. To compete those wages have been reduced or in many cases completely eliminated. Nike has shipped the last of its manufacturing overseas. Last year, a third of Nike’s remaining 13,922 American production workers were laid off. Most of Nike’s products are made by 990,000 workers in low-wage countries. As wages have risen in China, Nike has switched most of its production to Vietnam where wages are less than 60 cents per hour. Almost 340,000 workers cut and assemble Nike products there. New Balance is one of the only shoe and apparel manufacturers to use American labor almost exclusively. They choose to compete with Nike as a wage opportunity for their employees. These employees in turn support the American economy buy spending their wages in our economy.
Your support for a global economy supports sweatshop conditions in foreign labor pools while having corporate executives pocket the difference. Nike and New Balance shoes are very competitive price rise and the quality is comparable. Paying a worker 60 cents an hour profits the top and paying an American worker more profits both the worker and the corporate entity. The only difference is the greed by which they carry out their interests. You my friend are in the greed camp.
Didn't see this for probably too long. But...
"You my friend are in the greed camp."
Well, one of us is. One of us supports union wages, leading irrevocably to not only inflation but a two tier class of wage earners. With inflation leading to higher prices, fewer exports and more imports. And those benefiting the most? The union fat cats at the top - the union political structure that contributes nothing of value. Followed by the general union membership (when they can find work at inflated labor prices), and with the non-union members of the country footing the bill for it all. Yes, it's called greed.
What you call inflation is maintaining a standard that has fallen to new lows driving many into survivalist and poverty situations while fat cat industrialists send our jobs elsewhere and pocket the difference. Who cares about lower exports? We constantly lower this ratio year after year as we immerse ourselves in this globalization. We export money and import goods. It is a one way street to poverty. Unions were the safeguard against such things happening. They supported a huge middle class and raised our standard of living. Now with your love of globalization we can no longer support ourselves as jobs are gone, we are faced with incurring large debt to retrain or increase our education to get better paying jobs in a more competitive fields (as we forced so many others) with no experience. A real recipe for disaster.
The real greed is when you destroy a working system (shipping jobs out of country) through shady dealings (buying influence to enact it) and then lining your pockets with the profits by exploiting others (slave labor in foreign countries). And after that is done you sell it to the people you screwed. Ain't America great?
Let me ask you a question? Are you in the Electricians union?
Let's see if we can clear up some of this simple minded rant and turn it into useful communication.
Inflation: the condition arising when a dollar buys less and less. If you think that a "standard" of double digit inflation is a good thing, or that reducing inflation drives people to poverty, you need to go back to economics 101. I assure you that neither is true.
Exports: exports are a good thing and we need them. They keep Americans gainfully employed and produce the "capital" needed to buy the imports that we so greedily consume.
Globalization: You don't have to like it, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't a fact of life today, or accusing others of a "love of globalization" in a derogatory effort to pretend it is willfull, will not make it go away and will not reduce it's impact. A better approach would be to come out of that hole we've dug and figure out just how America will support itself in the global economy.
Every "working system" ever developed has changed over time, and the changing world around us dictates that we change ours as well. This isn't a matter of wanting to, it isn't a matter of welcoming and embracing any change, and it isn't something we can ignore and pretend isn't happening. If we, as individuals or as a nation, don't wish to be screwed royally, we desperately need to figure out how to handle the world wide change happening. Our better corporations have done so; it's time we the people did as well, but demanding that our corporations simply fold up and quit business isn't the answer.
No, I'm not a part of the IBEW or any other union, either now (I'm retired) or in the past. The only union I was ever a part of was a labor union during my college years for road construction, where we went on strike each year for several weeks and got a raise about big enough, spread out over the rest of the year, to pay for the time we refused to work. Where we earned approximately 5X minimum wage for the highly skilled and onerous task of picking up trash alongside the highway and throwing it into a dump truck. Smart, huh? That way highway work costs the taxpayer 5X what it should, but what the heck? It's tax money, and that's unlimited, isn't it?
If you mean the simple answers you are about to impart to several of the the complex questions I am all ears. Your answers held none of which I anticipated.
Inflation has nothing to do with the loss of wages and the failure for the wages to keep up with it. It is a set percentage based on valuation of the dollar against goods and services being bought and sold. The minimum wage is not regulated by it Federally to raise or lower wages. So it is an entirely different entity unto itself. The wage is left up to the marketplace and what it will bear. Inflation has nothing to do with it unless you factor in negotiated wages against producing a product. In your world you like that regulated on a global basis. Competing with labor pools in Vietnam and China where our inflation is not factored into the equation. Your assurances aside I'd rather listen to the economists.
Except for a brief period between 1998 till 2001 US trade exports have been in deficit spending. The only thing making a slight recovery in the still deficit US export trade is fracked energy. Where is the capital coming from to prove your claims. From credit and the Federal Reserves phony dollar which will rear its dirty little inflationary head when no one will accept our tab anymore. China has been happy to hold our tab for many years but that looks like it is in trouble with the inflationary currency policies They have been playing for years. Really what world do you come from that doesn't have its' head buried in the sand. You have bought into the conservative/capitalist BS about globalization hook line and sinker.
"Our better corporations have done so; it's time we the people did as well, but demanding that our corporations simply fold up and quit"
This has to be the biggest crock of horse$#! I have ever heard you say. Our better corporations who are fleecing us of our money, jobs and sovereignty is our guidance into the next "change"? You have lost your mind my man and your words betray you and enlighten us all into where your craziness is leading us.
I knew you must have had a bad experience with a union as did I. I got a seniority bump a very long time ago. That may be over forty years if I recollect. I did not carry a grudge as it was seniority due to my age and experience. I have mostly been self employed since then and even worked on union jobs after paying prevailing wage to do so. It never bothered me or affected me. I just bid at the same rates as my competition where I won a few and lost a few.
Somehow, we're simply not communicating about inflation. I say the word and gave a simple minded definition, you say the word but appear to mean something totally different. When you talk about wages not keeping up with inflation, for instance; why would you EVER expect that to happen? Increasing wages are an inflationary pressure, not deflationary, and can NEVER keep up because of that.
Exports: are you claiming that they are bad for the country? That we should not try to increase our exports? The only claim I made was that they are a good thing; do you disagree? And when you ask where the capital is coming from (about a claim I did not make), I haven't the faintest what you are asking for. We are simply not communicating here.
Would you disagree that corporations that have gone global are, as a general rule, doing worse than those that did not? No? Then you must accept what I said as true: that those that did are financially healthy; more so that the corporations and people that made no move to fit into the global market.
Some bad experience, yes (I was fired for moving a broken piece of equipment off of a busy highway before someone was killed), but in general just found the rules, and wages, completely out of line with efficient production. My impression was, and is, that unions do not give a rats a$$ about the value of work being done; only that union employees "earn" more than anyone else doing the same work. Competition is the last thing on their mind, and that can only end badly (and has, for the unions).
What I was trying to convey is that through globalization corporations have raised their prices in accordance with margins and not labor as they have all but eliminated that with foreign labor. The model some states are undertake is raising the minimum wage in an effort to spark their economies. Many of the business are not going to increase their prices relying instead of increased volume of business due to more expendable income. Wages have not kept up with the false inflation the corporations are claiming in their bottom line.
" For the first time, Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia will have minimum wages above the federal level, which has been unchanged for more than five years.Beyond those six states, another six that already had higher-than-federal minimums have decided on a boost: Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The District of Columbia will also see a rise in 2015.
And in nine states, the minimum wage will rise due to automatic adjustments to keep wages in line with inflation. Those states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington." Mark Trumble
Inflation is the dirty word no one is allowed to report or speculate on in the Mainstream Media. There are so many factors that are not taken into account when reporting it.
Well, that makes a little sense, although I do disagree. I don't find that corporations have increased their prices (at inflationary levels) at all - rather they have kept their product prices quite low as a result of using foreign, cheap, labor. I don't see some giant, secret corporate conspiracy to raise prices but rather an in-your-face competition that keeps prices low.
Yes, states (and some cities) are raising labor costs in a misguided hope that prices won't rise with rising costs. A classical case of head in the sand, to think that businesses will simply eat their costs and allow their profit margin to shrink or disappear without making any move to stop it. Seattle is a good example: after raising the minimum wage they are finding their minimum wage jobs are simply disappearing. Rather than try and maintain a profit in an untenable situation, businesses that cannot afford high labor prices simply close their doors and increase the unemployment rate, but the liberal dreamers can't seem to understand that that's what happens in the real world. They cling to the idea that costs have no effect of prices, and that wage increases to one segment won't affect wages in another - that their artificial demands won't be inflationary - but neither is true at all.
A very good example of this is the automatic raises built into some of the states minimum wage. There can be no greater inflationary pressure than an automatic wage increase, but there it is, right in the law books. The liberal concern over that mythical "living wage" is virtually guaranteeing that it won't be available, because they live in their dreams instead of the real world. It's much like pretending that we are not in a global economy - that Americans are somehow special and don't have to compete with anybody else in the world - while allowing our economy to fall into protectionism with it's inevitable result of retribution.
I too read that some business' had closed their doors in anticipation of the wage hike but it was also debunked by several news sources saying it was a misrepresentation of the facts. Here is one story saying what you do:
http://dailysurge.com/2015/04/seattle-m … to-close/#
Here is another saying that story was misleading.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik … olumn.html
I understand how it defies common sense but when played along with American business practices of doing anything to realize a quick profit the conservative point is true. But when played against the theory that more money earned equates to more money spent and the quantifying result of it creates a surge in spending there is evidence of it merits. Former Secretary of the Treasury Dr. Robert Reich who is an advocate of an increased minimum wage spends much of his time traveling around the country lecturing on this and historically proves the theory time and again. As you stated change is what it is all about. I just don't trust corporations whose only business is producing profit by any and all means despite it's affect on the American worker and their contributions to our economy.
"But when played against the theory that more money earned equates to more money spent and the quantifying result of it creates a surge in spending there is evidence of it merits."
So let's take a look at this, can we? Joe made $8 per hour flipping burgers, now makes $10. Let's look at what we can reasonable expect to see when that happens.
Burgers go up in price, from $5 to $6, but that's all right as Joe has more money to spend on them. But while this is happening, Bill, who made $10 making the machines that Joe used to cook with, is unhappy. He demands, and gets, $12.50 per hour, commensurate with his skills and abilities. And the price of a burger goes up to $6.25, but that's OK because they both make more and can buy more burgers.
Except that Sally, earning $13 in the truck plant that makes trucks to transport tomatoes for McD's sees the price increase of burgers, and the wage increase to her own level for semi-skilled work. She wants, and gets, $17 (and the price of a burger goes up again), whereupon John, making cars, demands that he go from $25 to $30. And the price of a car goes from $15,000 to $20,000, neatly negating any wage increase Joe got. It's called inflation and it's going to happen whether we hope companies will simply eat their increased labor costs or not (hoping does not generally have much effect on corporate profits).
So when it's all said and done, including an equal 25% increase in company profits, inflation has more than destroyed Joe's wonderful pay raise (and that of Bill, Sally and John as well) - they all need another one to counter the inflation that resulted from his first raise. And the cycle continues.
OR, we can let Joe, who refuses to find better work, stay where he is and suffer the consequences. With the result that Sally, Bill and John don't see inflation and keep on being able to live a decent life style without need for a raise that they haven't earned.
Rhamson, I went through this cycle in my younger years (and suspect you did as well). I also went through the corrective phase, when raises did not meet inflation. And I've seen the result; a far more stable economy, where planning means something and where a stable wage means a stable life. Yes, it hurt as the automatic raise concept died out, but I'd do it again to keep a truly competitive economy rather than one where we lose 10% of our buying ability each year unless we can squeeze a raise out.
The idea that society owes a fine, luxurious living to anyone working 40 hours is nonsense - if they want more than bare subsistence let them find a job paying more than subsistence wages. Not all work is worth more, and that the worker wants it anyway doesn't mean they should penalize the rest of the nation to get it. Nor is such a penalty (in the form of inflation) worth the cost to the nation - it is destructive in the extreme and pretending that it is useful or that it won't happen is just as destructive.
We have totally hijacked this thread and thereby not opened it up to the forum at large. Instead of continuing in this thread under the wrong title I have created another thread under,
"Is the Call for Raising the Minimum Wage a Detriment?
I have transferred your last post from here over there. Just go there to continue is you don't mind. Thanks.
Law and order are a large part of the American philosophy. I'm of the opinion that excessive force in law enforcement is limited but it's limited for the most part to urban areas high in crime and violence.
What happened in Baltimore reminds me of how police in large cities used to use excessive force and the threat of it to intimidate criminals and criminal organizations.
This is regression.
Giving a man a rough ride in a paddy wagon, a man who did nothing illegal, is brutality. There's no place for it in law and order and that's why those who committed the crime will now stand trial.
All human beings, regardless of race, culture or residency, regardless of what you think they might be up to, must not be mistreated without just cause (i.e. self-defense) or we risk violating the beliefs of those that founded our country.
Yes Of course, my son, my husband, they all experienced it, and you better do not have a nice car as a black man, they assume they are drug dealers. My husband work hard as a Nurse. My son sell real estate, they are followed and stop all the time, and they suspect it is because of their cars.
All Human beings have own nature (mentality). According to his mentality they work, but when they come into a government job like an arms job than government faith only there associate, and associates faith their leadership (Senior). If they give instruction, then associate follow his order without thinking "is it right or wrong?". That's why many accidents occur in society.
When the police stop you. Its yes sir. No sir.you dont argue, you dont fight.you dont resist, or run. You comply . Thats the rule. Teach your kids that. And this heavy handed policing will go away.cops are not judges.. and as far jobs. Dont wait for a job to fall into your lap. Create your own.if there are no jobs in your city. Its time to move. Think peope. Stop blaming.
America. I learned that lesson the hard way. By being thrown onto the hood of a cop car.face first.as a teen. Where you from
Im in fla now in construction. Work is good here again.but when houseing fell i had create jobs for myself.
by ptosis 3 years ago
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) 500X-RE can be heard 2 miles / 2,000 meters away. At 149 decibels the blasts is not only well past the 120-decibel discomfort mark but also above the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss.And before you blast me with troll bias about how it is not used...
by deecoleworld 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by VC L Veasey 3 years ago
Black men are seven times more likely to be killed by police than white men. Believe or disbelieve?Black men accounted for 40 percent of the 60 unarmed deaths, by police, this year, even though they make up just 6 percent of the U.S. population.(Washington Post database of fatal police shootings)
by Kelly Ann Christensen 3 weeks ago
Share your thoughts as to whether you believe those with prejudices such as the KKK, or secret blood oaths, or secret societies should be employed as public servants on the police force at any level. Share how you think this might endanger innocent citizens, as well as more fit police officers for...
by realtalk247 5 years ago
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) reported — An unarmed18-year-old black man was shot and killed by a suburban St. Louis police officer was unarmed. Several protesters were angry that Brown's body remained on the street for hours after the killing. Brown was a 2014 Normandy High School graduate who was to...
by deecoleworld 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|