How Bill O'Reilly attempts to belittle younger generations

[NoDrama]

Sure you didn't, you just posted a video clip satirizing lazy fucks and implied I'm the person detailed at :50 for admitting a previous occupation.

Not sure who you expected to buy that shit, or who you expect to buy this, but you and I both know why you posted it

It's just another account of how the entitled feel justified in their beliefs.


Like I said before, I hope you have high walls, because you look delicious from where I'm sitting!

I never implied anything, I directly asked if it was you. Nothing wrong with making people coffee all day long, if you didn't do that job, just imagine all the children that would have starved due to their parents falling asleep at the wheel and killing themselves.

Are you a cannibal? I am not afraid, not even a smidgen, I watched those Hannibal movies and I know you won't eat me without a nice wine that goes well.

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

He'll be happy to lick your ass.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I never implied anything, I directly asked if it was you. Nothing wrong with making people coffee all day long, if you didn't do that job, just imagine all the children that would have starved due to their parents falling asleep at the wheel and killing themselves.

Are you a cannibal? I am not afraid, not even a smidgen, I watched those Hannibal movies and I know you won't eat me without a nice wine that goes well.

I'm not even sure what this is.. You deny doing exactly what I said you did by doing exactly what I said you were doing...

Clearly, you, and people who share your opinion on minimum wage workers feel they are below you in society and should be paid accordingly. This proves everything I said and why I said it. Regulation is needed so that scummy fucks like yourself can't take advantage of the lowest rungs of our society and get away with it, and you just proved it.

You see them as numbers to be squeezed, profits to be made. Not people who have kids and bills.

This is why people like me exist. This is why my side will win. Because there are less scummy fucks like you and more advocates for fair, honest, working wages like me. You have the power now, but keep pushing the limit.. See when it breaks. You think I'm kidding when I say you look delicious. You think I (or any of us) have any qualms with eating red meat? You think you'll be safe when it comes to that? Who do you think will be the first targets? The big houses on the hill, I assure you. You think personal security can stop thousands of people with one goal? I hope you're practicing!

 

[BigNBushy]

Let's get to a core of the issue.

Pad, what do you think taking advantage of someone looks like?

I would be interested to know what is the "entry level" activity into the world of exploitation. I have a feeling that you and I differ greatly on what that is.

 

[NoDrama]

I'm not even sure what this is.. You deny doing exactly what I said you did by doing exactly what I said you were doing...

Clearly, you, and people who share your opinion on minimum wage workers feel they are below you in society and should be paid accordingly. This proves everything I said and why I said it. Regulation is needed so that scummy fucks like yourself can't take advantage of the lowest rungs of our society and get away with it, and you just proved it.

You see them as numbers to be squeezed, profits to be made. Not people who have kids and bills.

This is why people like me exist. This is why my side will win. Because there are less scummy fucks like you and more advocates for fair, honest, working wages like me. You have the power now, but keep pushing the limit.. See when it breaks. You think I'm kidding when I say you look delicious. You think I (or any of us) have any qualms with eating red meat? You think you'll be safe when it comes to that? Who do you think will be the first targets? The big houses on the hill, I assure you. You think personal security can stop thousands of people with one goal? I hope you're practicing!

I see that you couldn't be bothered to actually find out what my position is, because you got it ALL wrong. Just because I make you defend your opinions doesn't mean that I am opposed to them.

I actually think many of you are actually being squeamish about this min wage thing. $2 an hour raise? Hell it SHOULD be a minimum of a $13 an hour raise, yet you all only want $2. They been fucking you in the ass for 43 years and throwing people scraps from the table and claiming how much good they have done. Then people begin wondering why scraps aren't enough to pull you out of poverty.

Stop asking for scraps and ask for a seat at the fucking table.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I see that you couldn't be bothered to actually find out what my position is, because you got it ALL wrong. Just because I make you defend your opinions doesn't mean that I am opposed to them.

I actually think many of you are actually being squeamish about this min wage thing. $2 an hour raise? Hell it SHOULD be a minimum of a $13 an hour raise, yet you all only want $2. They been fucking you in the ass for 43 years and throwing people scraps from the table and claiming how much good they have done. Then people begin wondering why scraps aren't enough to pull you out of poverty.

Stop asking for scraps and ask for a seat at the fucking table.

I just got home from work, I haven't been on RIU today until right now

$2 is insignificant. I've been advocating for the minimum wage to follow productivity, if that were the case, it would be somewhere around $23/hour

 

[BigNBushy]

I just got home from work, I haven't been on RIU today until right now

$2 is insignificant. I've been advocating for the minimum wage to follow productivity, if that were the case, it would be somewhere around $23/hour

That doesn't really make sense though. Example.

While I was in law school a professor told me once that today one lawyer can do in one day what a team of lawyers took a week to do a generation ago. Why is this? Are we better lawyers today? Nope, technology! Today lexisnexus and west law have online databases, so instead of going across town and thumbing through thousands of pages at the law library, reading countless similar cases only to later find them irrelevant, today a lawyer can sit in an office and do a keyword search and get a list of dozens, or hundreds of relevant cases. Not only does it instantly tell you if the case is relevant or not, it even shows you the dispositive paragraph in the search results.

So today, a bad lawyer is more effective than a team of great lawyers from 20 years ago.

What about carpenters? Well, this revolution isn't a recent, but I had a grandfather that built houses. When he started they all cut every board and bore out every hole with hand tools using muscles. Today they all have power saws.

The productivity has gone up, the work has become easier and more fool proof. If anything they deserve lower wages comparatively, even though their productivity is higher.

I'm sure if one sat down for a while he could find some exceptions to this, but by and large this is how people are more productive, it isn't that they are working harder, it is that their employers have invested in equipment to reduce the man hours needed to complete the same task, and the work is generally much easier as a result.

 

[UncleBuck]

everybody wants to be the captain of the boat.

and some people just want to be alone on a boat with other men and are not quite sure why (that would be you).

 

[Padawanbater2]

That doesn't really make sense though. Example.

While I was in law school a professor told me once that today one lawyer can do in one day what a team of lawyers took a week to do a generation ago. Why is this? Are we better lawyers today? Nope, technology! Today lexisnexus and west law have online databases, so instead of going across town and thumbing through thousands of pages at the law library, reading countless similar cases only to later find them irrelevant, today a lawyer can sit in an office and do a keyword search and get a list of dozens, or hundreds of relevant cases. Not only does it instantly tell you if the case is relevant or not, it even shows you the dispositive paragraph in the search results.

So today, a bad lawyer is more effective than a team of great lawyers from 20 years ago.

What about carpenters? Well, this revolution isn't a recent, but I had a grandfather that built houses. When he started they all cut every board and bore out every hole with hand tools using muscles. Today they all have power saws.

The productivity has gone up, the work has become easier and more fool proof. If anything they deserve lower wages comparatively, even though their productivity is higher.

I'm sure if one sat down for a while he could find some exceptions to this, but by and large this is how people are more productive, it isn't that they are working harder, it is that their employers have invested in equipment to reduce the man hours needed to complete the same task, and the work is generally much easier as a result.

There are two things being produced, the product and the labor manufacturing the product. The owner of the company owns the products, the workers own their labor. The proceeds of both should be distributed more evenly, I'm not saying they need to be exactly 50/50, but since 1978 it's been 94/6 - that's unacceptable

 

[BigNBushy]

There are two things being produced, the product and the labor manufacturing the product. The owner of the company owns the products, the workers own their labor. The proceeds of both should be distributed more evenly, I'm not saying they need to be exactly 50/50, but since 1978 it's been 94/6 - that's unacceptable

I see your point. But this is assuming your numbers are correct. Where do you get this 96/4 distribution ratio at?

The real problem is that workers don't entirely own their labor, ultimately they do, but they lease it out for an agreed to price.

If I own and control a means to produce something of value, but I need people to push the buttons or turn the screw driver to get it to market here is my concern. Doing so at a price that will make my product competitive and economically viable.

The simple truth is that labor, like everything else, is a supply and demand market. I need labor to produce my widgets the same as I need raw materials. No one in this country (legally) forces anyone to work against their will. Any job I've ever had I knew what I was going to make for each hour before I even came to work that first day. There is no exploitation.

I will buy the raw materials I need at the cheapest price possible, considering all variables, such as quality and the like.

Likewise, I will buy my labor to make my widgets at the lowest price possible with the same considerations.

You and I are so opposed on this that I don't even really know how to discuss it with you.

I see our differences like this...

To me labor/jobs exists so the person purchasing it can produce a product and realize a profit.

You seem to think a job exists to provide you with all of your needs.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

There are two things being produced, the product and the labor manufacturing the product. The owner of the company owns the products, the workers own their labor. The proceeds of both should be distributed more evenly, I'm not saying they need to be exactly 50/50, but since 1978 it's been 94/6 - that's unacceptable[COLOR]

That's where you fucked up. You own your compensation for THE labor. That's the price you pay for living in a world where you buy rather than making, and no longer self sufficient living from hundreds of years ago. You're still not self sufficient even with your off grid dream. Since you didn't build that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I see your point. But this is assuming your numbers are correct. Where do you get this 96/4 distribution ratio at?

The real problem is that workers don't entirely own their labor, ultimately they do, but they lease it out for an agreed to price.

If I own and control a means to produce something of value, but I need people to push the buttons or turn the screw driver to get it to market here is my concern. Doing so at a price that will make my product competitive and economically viable.

The simple truth is that labor, like everything else, is a supply and demand market. I need labor to produce my widgets the same as I need raw materials. No one in this country (legally) forces anyone to work against their will. Any job I've ever had I knew what I was going to make for each hour before I even came to work that first day. There is no exploitation.

I will buy the raw materials I need at the cheapest price possible, considering all variables, such as quality and the like.

Likewise, I will buy my labor to make my widgets at the lowest price possible with the same considerations.

You and I are so opposed on this that I don't even really know how to discuss it with you.

I see our differences like this...

To me labor/jobs exists so the person purchasing it can produce a product and realize a profit.

You seem to think a job exists to provide you with all of your needs.

That's where you fucked up. You own your compensation for THE labor. That's the price you pay for living in a world where you buy rather than making, and no longer self sufficient living from hundreds of years ago. You're still not self sufficient even with your off grid dream. Since you didn't build that.

How is the price someone can offer for their labor a choice in an economic market with such high competition?

Bargaining for a wage is not an option at the minimum wage level. You take what they offer you or you don't take the job, that's not much of a "choice" how you seem to define it. It's like the choice they give you in organized religion, believe or burn (cake or death).. How is that a choice?

Employers would offer the lowest wages possible if they could get away with it, the only thing stopping them is regulation. Employees would have to take them, regardless of if they wanted to or not, dispelling the myth of choice at the door. $.10/hour is better than no $/hour. This is how it worked in the US before the workers rights movement, this is how it works in foreign countries with no workers rights to speak of


There is no choice in the sense you're referring to

 

[Padawanbater2]

To me labor/jobs exists so the person purchasing it can produce a product and realize a profit.

You seem to think a job exists to provide you with all of your needs.

I think in a country whose inhabitants consume more than 4 times what they need, that has more empty houses than homeless people, should offer full time jobs that pay living wages, otherwise those jobs shouldn't exist. If you have to work more than 1 full time job, there isn't much time to pull yourself out of your situation, ensuring the cycle of poverty continues

 

[NLXSK1]

There are two things being produced, the product and the labor manufacturing the product. The owner of the company owns the products, the workers own their labor. The proceeds of both should be distributed more evenly, I'm not saying they need to be exactly 50/50, but since 1978 it's been 94/6 - that's unacceptable

Then start your own company and pay people fairly. You should be hugely successful as your employees will be unfailingly loyal due to the much higher wage you pay them. You could own the free world with this new concept!!

GO DO IT!!!

 

[NLXSK1]

I think in a country whose inhabitants consume more than 4 times what they need, that has more empty houses than homeless people, should offer full time jobs that pay living wages, otherwise those jobs shouldn't exist. If you have to work more than 1 full time job, there isn't much time to pull yourself out of your situation, ensuring the cycle of poverty continues

You should move to the Netherlands. You would be much happier. They assign you a house, they assign you a job, they assign you a wage.

 

[Dr.J20]

You are anept at office politics.

i think you mean "inept" though it could be adept but that would be contextually incoherent.

 

[NLXSK1]

Padwan,

I am going to try one more time because I think you are honestly debating this and not trolling. The reason I am so dogged about this topic is because it is about freedom. You want less of it and I want more of it. You may disagree but I would ask that you honestly try to look at this issue from a different perspective.

You have the right to take a minimum wage job if you choose. You also have the right to not take the job. However, you have lost the right to take a job for less than minimum wage which is an arbitrary number set by the government. It is illegal.

I am a business owner. If I chose to expand one of my businesses I would need to do so by hiring people as I do not have time to do more than I am doing now.

So, I find a person and they agree that they want to work for me for 9.00 dollars an hour. Or maybe I work out a barter deal where they can live in one of my properties and I pay them 3.00 per hour... Oh wait, that is illegal.... Why??? Because the government doesnt get to tax the shit out of us... THAT is why it is illegal, not because the government gives a damn about you.

Having a minimum wage and raising a minimum wage reduces the employment choices people make. You like to give an example of a single young person living alone or who has a family trying to make it on minimum wage and discount the millions of other possibilities for people who might not mind taking jobs for less as their lifestyle does not demand "X" dollars in income.

You can choose not to take a minimum wage job. Hell, there are jobs all over the country that pay more than minimum wage and are entry level. You can start your own business if you think it is so easy and the people who do get filthy rich doing it. The point is that you have choices and opportunities and it is all up to you. Demanding that other people's choices be reduced and their freedom to enter into any type of creative employment contract they want made illegal (again due to taxes, not compassion) is the wrong way to go about it.

Try to think about this from more than just your side.

 

[ginwilly]

Pad, your disdain for the over 40 crowd sounds teenish. Back when we knew everything, the older generation just didn't get it. An amazing thing happened to me, the older I got, the smarter my parents got, but at 16, they were complete idiots. You act as though you haven't figured out your parents really DO know what they are talking about yet.

I have to ask, are you wiser now than you were 10 years ago? Do you think you'll get dumber in the next 10/20 years?

You should spend time with the over 80 crowd, then decide for yourself if wisdom comes with age and experience or freshman college courses.

 

[PetFlora]

BO, like all the talking heads, only have the power you give them

Take your power back

There are plenty of other options

 

[MuyLocoNC]

He had 2 different segments where his entire motivation was belittling younger people in America. Saying shit like they only care about their cell phones or what Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber are doing..

In relation to the vast majority of the specified generation, he is 100% accurate. I see it first hand and it's pathetic. My children are the exception to the rule amongst their friends, in that their phone/TV/Xbox/Ipad usage is restricted and attached to chores and real life accomplishments (studying, working out, practicing instrument, etc...). The iPhone has become the new babysitter for uninvolved parents. When those kids are complete failures, still living at home in their late twenties, the parents will deserve every frustrating moment.