Millions improperly got ObamaPhones - cost 2 billion dollars.

[avxo]

You'll have to explain how this pertains to the argument, avxo. Because you've definitely lost me.

When you say "do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?" what damage are you referring to?

[24KT]

It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.

A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?

It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.

And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?

oh  Oh  OH!

[Jack T. Cross]

oh  Oh  OH!

lol...unless they've got one of those bank accounts, they're probably going to need employment, even if it's dead-end shit.

[Jack T. Cross]

avxo: Damage to the average person's security (financial and otherwise), within our culture.

[avxo]

avxo: Damage to the average person's security (financial and otherwise), within our culture.

You will need to be more specific.

[Jack T. Cross]

You will need to be more specific.

I refer to a threat that presents itself to a person's security, when a world of animalistic breeding becomes combined with ideas that would view such recklessly exploding groups as a "logical" source of production.

[avxo]

I refer to a threat that presents itself to a person's security, when a world of animalistic breeding becomes combined with ideas that would view such recklessly exploding groups as a "logical" source of production.

Oooh.. animalistic breeding.

[Jack T. Cross]

Oooh.. animalistic breeding.

Is this an argument, avxo?

[avxo]

Is this an argument, avxo?

It's hard to argue against a non-position position like the one you posted. If you can post specific things you are opposed to, I can tell you whether I agree or not, and if I don't, I can tell you why I don't.

[Jack T. Cross]

It's hard to argue against a non-position position like the one you posted. If you can post specific things you are opposed to, I can tell you whether I agree or not, and if I don't, I can tell you why I don't.

Not sure what you mean.

[avxo]

Not sure what you mean.

I mean that the position you posted is so generic as to be useless. What's a threat to a person's security?  What's "animalistic breeding"? And so on. Please provid specific issues that you wish to debate, or, if you want to debate in the abstract, clearly define the terms and the scope of your arguments.

[Jack T. Cross]

I mean that the position you posted is so generic as to be useless. What's a threat to a person's security?  What's "animalistic breeding"? And so on. Please provid specific issues that you wish to debate, or, if you want to debate in the abstract, clearly define the terms and the scope of your arguments.

Breeding without regard for consequence, as is performed so constantly in other parts of the world, is a threat to the average person's security, financial and otherwise.

Would you agree with this statement?

[avxo]

Breeding without regard for consequence, as is performed so constantly in other parts of the world, is a threat to the average person's security, financial and otherwise.

Would you agree with this statement?

No, I don't.

[Jack T. Cross]

No, I don't.

So when you say this:

In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay).

You agree that more people means less pay is generally achievable, right?

[avxo]

So when you say this:

You agree that more people means less pay is generally achievable, right?

Well, I normally avoid arguing generalities; in fact, I would argue that historically, even as the population grew, the compensation for non-trivial increased. Sure, the compensation for trivial jobs (mowing the laws, sewing t-shirts, etc) decreased, but that's a reflection of the value that the market attaches to those jobs.

But, just for fun, let's just pretend I said "yes, I generally think that is achievable" and see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

[Jack T. Cross]

Well, I normally avoid arguing generalities; in fact, I would argue that historically, even as the population grew, the compensation for non-trivial increased. Sure, the compensation for trivial jobs (mowing the laws, sewing t-shirts, etc) decreased, but that's a reflection of the value that the market attaches to those jobs.

But, just for fun, let's just pretend I said "yes, I generally think that is achievable" and see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Okay, then please give exceptions to this generality.

[avxo]

Okay, then please give exceptions to this generality.

Computer programmers. The population has grown dramatically, and yet more pay is achievable now than previously. Doctors are another good example. At any rate, pay isn't the sole metric (as you seem to think) even if you adjust pay for inflation. Look around you and compare the life of the average person to the life of the average person 60 years ago. It's not even worth it to look further back than that.

You take exception with the statement that when I look to hire someone "I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay)." It's always been that way, with every job, and it's nothing new:

Assume I want to have my lawn mowed. I'm willing to spend up to $1.00 per week for this job. You come along and you're willing to do it for $0.50. I'd be stupid to pay you $1.00. If someone else came along and offered to do the same work for $0.40, I'd be stupid to keep paying you $0.50 (assuming he does just as good a job, of course). And so on. If you wanted to charge $1.50 to mow my lawn (because that's what you need to charge to make ends meet) I simply wouldn't hire you. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't owe you a living; nobody does.

This isn't rocket science. It's simply cost-benefit analysis.

[24KT]

lol...unless they've got one of those bank accounts, they're probably going to need employment, even if it's dead-end shit.

Then they'd better get one of those accounts ASAP ...or face a life of dead-end employment.   

[Jack T. Cross]

Computer programmers. The population has grown dramatically, and yet more pay is achievable now than previously. Doctors are another good example. At any rate, pay isn't the sole metric (as you seem to think) even if you adjust pay for inflation. Look around you and compare the life of the average person to the life of the average person 60 years ago. It's not even worth it to look further back than that.

You take exception with the statement that when I look to hire someone "I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay)." It's always been that way, with every job, and it's nothing new:

Assume I want to have my lawn mowed. I'm willing to spend up to $1.00 per week for this job. You come along and you're willing to do it for $0.50. I'd be stupid to pay you $1.00. If someone else came along and offered to do the same work for $0.40, I'd be stupid to keep paying you $0.50 (assuming he does just as good a job, of course). And so on. If you wanted to charge $1.50 to mow my lawn (because that's what you need to charge to make ends meet) I simply wouldn't hire you. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't owe you a living; nobody does.

This isn't rocket science. It's simply cost-benefit analysis.

So you'd say computer programmers and doctors are the exception to the generality, avxo?

[avxo]

So you'd say computer programmers and doctors are the exception to the generality, avxo?

No, I said way more than that. Reread my message and stop playing the silly game you're trying to play.

[Jack T. Cross]

No, I said way more than that. Reread my message and stop playing the silly game you're trying to play.

I'm trying to find confidence in your ideas, avxo, but you're not making it very easy to do that.

[avxo]

I'm trying to find confidence in your ideas, avxo, but you're not making it very easy to do that.

If the evidence that's in front of your eyes doesn't convince you, I could draw a proof in brightly-colored crayons and you still wouldn't be convinced.

[Soul Crusher]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamaphone-use-grew-100-fold-in-3-years-in-md.-to-twice-the-number-eligible/article/2554042




 

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/man-steals-obama-phone-during-domestic-dispute-687432

[andreisdaman]

I guess you mean the BUSHphone