A big issue is we don't need as many people for the newest innovations.
Social media/internet/web platforms......Amazon is far leaner and meaner than retailers of yesteryear
Battery technology advancements have skyrocketed over the past 20 years and will probably continue to do so over the next 20. How many jobs is this really creating? Not many on a large scale but it is going to change the way we use electricitiy for the better. Who knows, it may disrupt the entire power grid/utility model. This is going to open plants.
Twitter has the same market cap as GM and 90% less employees I believe
We've doubled our production of the black gold in a scant 5 years thanks to technology improvements
The new iphone has 64 GB on it. Who the fuck needs 64GB on a phone?
Just something to think about.
Social media/internet/web platforms......Amazon is far leaner and meaner than retailers of yesteryear
Battery technology advancements have skyrocketed over the past 20 years and will probably continue to do so over the next 20. How many jobs is this really creating? Not many on a large scale but it is going to change the way we use electricitiy for the better. Who knows, it may disrupt the entire power grid/utility model. This is going to open plants.
Twitter has the same market cap as GM and 90% less employees I believe
We've doubled our production of the black gold in a scant 5 years thanks to technology improvements
The new iphone has 64 GB on it. Who the fuck needs 64GB on a phone?
Just something to think about.
Nice punt, Tonto.
Explain why so many employees in this country earn above minimum wage. After all, employers are only obligated to pay them minimum wage...and nothing more. They must simply have incredibly stupid and careless decision makers on staff, right?
Why would a company in their right minds offer anything above MW?
Doesn't mean anything?
War on Poverty is a commonly known dimocrap-initiated program. Saying it doesn't mean anything is like suggesting the phrase "Miracle on Ice" is ambiguous and no one can be sure what that means either. Why don't you just google the phrase and see what comes up. For now, let's jut add this to the growing list of proofs that you're an uneducated twit.
I'd be more than happy to go in depth about why poverty rates are as high as they are today, and why a large reason for that can be tied back to this inane program. You won't understand much of it though without knowing what the program even is, though. So go do some research. The short version is this program created enormous government dependency while keeping those who received benefits below the poverty line. If you want to begin a real war on poverty, let's at least begin by renaming it a war on government dependency and go from there.
That explains nothing. Why were poverty rates so high the years before the "war on poverty" began?
The thing I also find a little ironic, is the money they spend to fight poverty is not included in an individuals income. So someone in poverty might not be in poverty because of the anti-poverty measures.
You and Sheriff Joe don't have a fucking clue why poverty rates are where they are. It's hilarious though that you have a graph that shows poverty rates were much higher than any time during the decades following the "war on poverty".
Does China even have a minimum wage? Oh yeah, I almost forgot...they don't need one. Because if there is anything communist/socialist countries are known for...it's really taking care of their employees and paying them far above their market value for their services.
I'll ask again. Why are there so many Americans who make more than minimum wage when a company doesn't have to pay them any more than that? Expound on your secret "reason."
Here's the real data... not really anything significant pointing to the "war on poverty" causing more poverty. And the funny thing is poverty rates were much higher in the years prior to 1959. Some estimates indicate over 50% of the population was in poverty in the early 1900s. It's a very awesome logical fallacy you guys use though.
Poverty Rate (8)
1959 22.4%
1960 22.2 < recession year
1961 21.9
1962 21.0
1963 19.5
1964 19.0 < Johnson’s Great Society begins
1965 17.3
1966 14.7
1967 14.2
1968 12.8
1969 12.1
1970 12.6 < recession year
1971 12.5
1972 11.9
1973 11.1
1974 11.2 < recession year
1975 12.3 < recession year
1976 11.8 < individual benefits level off, decline
1977 11.6
1978 11.4
1979 11.7
1980 13.0 < recession year
1981 14.0 < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits
1982 15.0 < recession year
1983 15.2
1984 14.4
1985 14.0
1986 13.6
1987 13.4
1988 13.0
1989 12.8
1990 13.5 < recession year
1991 14.2 < recession year
1992 14.8
1993 15.1
Poverty Rate (8)
1959 22.4%
1960 22.2 < recession year
1961 21.9
1962 21.0
1963 19.5
1964 19.0 < Johnson’s Great Society begins
1965 17.3
1966 14.7
1967 14.2
1968 12.8
1969 12.1
1970 12.6 < recession year
1971 12.5
1972 11.9
1973 11.1
1974 11.2 < recession year
1975 12.3 < recession year
1976 11.8 < individual benefits level off, decline
1977 11.6
1978 11.4
1979 11.7
1980 13.0 < recession year
1981 14.0 < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits
1982 15.0 < recession year
1983 15.2
1984 14.4
1985 14.0
1986 13.6
1987 13.4
1988 13.0
1989 12.8
1990 13.5 < recession year
1991 14.2 < recession year
1992 14.8
1993 15.1
It explains enough to someone who doesn't know what the war on poverty is or where it originated. It isn't my fault or Joe's that you're incapable of comprehending it.
Next time you're in bed with your English professor, ask him his thoughts on the war on poverty. I'm just dying to know whether he thinks it "worked."
The poverty rate was already in a free fall before the "war on poverty" began - your own data clearly shows this.
These programs did absolutely nothing except create a whole generation of dysfunctional, ungrateful, envious, dependent voters like akphidelt who have been taught "government is good for them"
Using a cost-benefit analysis, tell us again why 22 trillion dollars on this unconstitutional catastrophe was money well spent.
