Community > Posts By > Chazster

 
Chazster's photo
Mon 05/26/14 02:53 PM

Skye is not as good as viber.Viber works well and is free.Skype always insists that you pay something down in advance.mad

Ummm nope. I have had skype for like 8 years and never paid anything.

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/26/14 02:49 PM








good place to start will be the deadbeat MALES Who walk away and keep living life,,,,,,


That would be an appropriate response from you, shift the blame elsewhere, it always someone else, but it takes two to tango.



no cheese chucky,,lol,,, it takes TWO, and when ONE walks away its left on the other ONE,,,,


BOTH are responsible,, make BOTH be responsible instead of just one,,,,,unless males are 'entitled' to be excused from their parenting role,,,,


if men could keep their pants zipped...problem solved :)


lol both are still responsible, if women could keep their pants zipped as well... problem solved.


this is true, but when two CONSENT to lie down, they SHOULD both take responsibility for the outcome

often women take the responsibility on fully while men get a pass to walk away and leave that same woman to be scorned and belittled for not being able to do it all,,,,,


Ok let's look at it this way. If a woman wants and abortion and the man doesn't can he stop her? If a woman doesn't want an abortion and the man does can he make her? The answer to these questions shows that while both parties are responsible, one should be taking more of the responsibility than the other.



no, both SHOULD be taking responsibility


if a man doesnt want a child aborted, the responsible thing is not to make a child unless its with someone that also wants a child

if a man doesnt want a child, he should protect HIMSELF from creating children

once both take the risk by laying down BOTH should take responsibility,,,,



You can say the same thing about the woman, but who gets to make the decision after the fact?

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/26/14 02:49 PM

over compensated based upon what?

in 1968 ,

a gallon of gas was 34Cents
the cost of a new home was 26000
and the average income was 7.8 grand
http://www.1960sflashback.com/1968/economy.asp


minimum wage was 1.60

put in perspective, that means

the 'average' income was 3.75 per hour

the minimum wage was 42 percent of the average

one could get a gallon of gas with (average) ten minutes of work
and 20 minutes for minimum wage

one would need three and 1/3 a years earnings to own a home(Average), or nearly 8 years earnings on minimum wage




, FAST FORWARD TO TOAY

federal minimum wage is 7.25

average income is 40, 563 (19.50 per hour)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/09/29/what-is-your-us-income-percentile-ranking-n1712430/page/full

the minimum wage is 37 percent of the average
gallon of gas (average) is 3.56
and the average price of a new home is 311,400

put in perspective, that means

a gallon of gas is (roughly) 12 minutes labor(average)
30 minutes labor on minimum wage
and it takes an average of 7.7 years earnings to own a home
and 20 years for minimum wage

considering, another way
in almost 50 years, the price of gas is ten times what it was
the average home is 12 times as much
and the average income is five times as much
and the minimum wage is 4.5 times as much



exactly who is REALLY being 'overcompensated'?









Except land and gas are non renewable resources, labor isn't.

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/26/14 02:46 PM






good place to start will be the deadbeat MALES Who walk away and keep living life,,,,,,


That would be an appropriate response from you, shift the blame elsewhere, it always someone else, but it takes two to tango.



no cheese chucky,,lol,,, it takes TWO, and when ONE walks away its left on the other ONE,,,,


BOTH are responsible,, make BOTH be responsible instead of just one,,,,,unless males are 'entitled' to be excused from their parenting role,,,,


if men could keep their pants zipped...problem solved :)


lol both are still responsible, if women could keep their pants zipped as well... problem solved.


this is true, but when two CONSENT to lie down, they SHOULD both take responsibility for the outcome

often women take the responsibility on fully while men get a pass to walk away and leave that same woman to be scorned and belittled for not being able to do it all,,,,,


Ok let's look at it this way. If a woman wants and abortion and the man doesn't can he stop her? If a woman doesn't want an abortion and the man does can he make her? The answer to these questions shows that while both parties are responsible, one should be taking more of the responsibility than the other.

Chazster's photo
Sat 05/24/14 08:32 AM




You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced.


all labor is a skill,, whether it is a common skill or not is irrelevant

I understand wage should be commiserate with work, but even that is not the reality

who says a teacher isn't doing something that not everyone can do, and an entertainer too, but why would one make so much more than the other? because of being able to COMPETE based upon their PERSONAL Contribution to THEIR employer and their employers profits,,,

time is money, time and energy should be compensated,,,,

skilled labor
noun
1.
labor that requires special training for its satisfactory performance.


unskilled labor
noun
1.
work that requires practically no training or experience for its adequate or competent performance.

No not all labor is skilled




actually it is

skill: : the ability to do something that comes from training, experience, or practice

the CLASSIST definition of 'skilled LABOR' ,unfortunately, ties work to the 'training' (to be equated with financial investment)

and totally disregards the EXPERIENCE that comes freely from ambition and interest


if its not money, its not a value, if it didn't cost money, its not a value either,,,,

but, strictly speaking, any LABOR is a SKILL in that it has come from someones experiences or practice in doing that thing,,,


Actually its not. Just like Sun and sun light are two different things a skill and skilled labor are two different things. Nice try though.

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 04:12 PM


You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced.


all labor is a skill,, whether it is a common skill or not is irrelevant

I understand wage should be commiserate with work, but even that is not the reality

who says a teacher isn't doing something that not everyone can do, and an entertainer too, but why would one make so much more than the other? because of being able to COMPETE based upon their PERSONAL Contribution to THEIR employer and their employers profits,,,

time is money, time and energy should be compensated,,,,

skilled labor
noun
1.
labor that requires special training for its satisfactory performance.


unskilled labor
noun
1.
work that requires practically no training or experience for its adequate or competent performance.

No not all labor is skilled

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 02:06 PM
You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced.

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 01:34 PM


So a person can live above the poverty level pretty much already with minimum wage or at least pretty close. So you are saying if people who cant afford to have kids dont then we dont need to raise minimum wage.?


Im saying as times change, and since the minimum wage only indicates the MINIMUM one can be paid , we should account for how many people are working jobs that are near to the minimum but who are trying to support families,,

that is to say, to raise the bar to a standard that at least supports a household of two,,,


So you are saying the employer should be forced to pay more for unskilled labor because, through no fault of the employer, their workers are trying to support a family?

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 01:04 PM
So a person can live above the poverty level pretty much already with minimum wage or at least pretty close. So you are saying if people who cant afford to have kids dont then we dont need to raise minimum wage.?

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 08:33 AM




Coming soon, "The Affordable Mortgage Act".
"If you like your home, you can keep it".:tongue:



They claim the Affordable Mortgage Act is what led to the bubbles crashing to begin with. And it didn't matter how much people liked the homes they couldn't really afford to buy in the first place, once the gig was up it was over.

I can just imagine how high rent will be on the new apartment complexes being built to house those who were scammed by the AMA. Big money is going to stay big money regardless to how it affects the rest of us penny pinchers.


Sure you can blame the law that gives incentives to banks to loan to high risk people, but I prefer to shift that over to people who take bigger loans than they could afford.


I think "all" sides are equally responsible as they were trying to get something from nothing together yet separately.


That is like saying since the government allows you to buy a gun then they are equally responsible if you kill someone with it. I disagree. It is the individuals responsibility. You take out a loan it is your responsibility to pay it. No one else's.

Chazster's photo
Fri 05/23/14 05:41 AM


Coming soon, "The Affordable Mortgage Act".
"If you like your home, you can keep it".:tongue:



They claim the Affordable Mortgage Act is what led to the bubbles crashing to begin with. And it didn't matter how much people liked the homes they couldn't really afford to buy in the first place, once the gig was up it was over.

I can just imagine how high rent will be on the new apartment complexes being built to house those who were scammed by the AMA. Big money is going to stay big money regardless to how it affects the rest of us penny pinchers.


Sure you can blame the law that gives incentives to banks to loan to high risk people, but I prefer to shift that over to people who take bigger loans than they could afford.

Chazster's photo
Thu 05/22/14 11:03 AM







Underwater doesn't mean they dont have a home. It means they owe more than it is currently worth. Most likely that means they bought it not long before the bubble burst If they paid so little so far.


I know... I was just thinking about all those who actually lost their homes too... and that the current homeowners who are already underwater might have to take the next step off the deep end and not be able to come back up. What then? Where do they all go?


I work in construction. We are building tons of apartments. They will be "renting" especially with how hard it is to get a mortgage these days.


That makes sense. Homeowners getting downgraded to apartment renters.

If I was really underwater I would just let it go. but luckily the market values are going back up again since there is less inventory on the market.


But are there enough buyers with steady and adequate employment as well as the ready money to take advantage of whats available?


buyers: yes
buyers with 20% down: no
buyers willing to pay higher for a home appraised for less: no

as for david :) yea underwater is just a term that says you owe more on your home than it's currently worth. keep it if you can afford to make payments, don't if u can't.


Will be buying a home when we have 20% down + another 20k or so nest egg in case of emergency. Yay for preparedness

Chazster's photo
Thu 05/22/14 10:56 AM


The concept of being "under water" with a mortgage is really an artificial concept. As long as a home owner can afford the mortgage payments, then the person is still a home owner no matter what the current market value of the home is.


Thank you for simplifying this particular "under water" part of the US housing market issues our country is currently facing since the bubble burst and so many Americans lives have been turned upside down.

We can be thankful that many are still in their homes, and hope they'll be able to maintain what they have for years to come.

Your life was only turned upside down if you bought a home you couldn't afford or buying investment properties.

Chazster's photo
Thu 05/22/14 10:55 AM



sigh,,,,


first, for government purposes, a small business is determined by the type of business, different types have different standards based upon either number of employers or revenue,, no BLANKET amount for all small business,,,

and


second a 'small business' is not the same as a 'mom and pop' business
depending upon industry a 'small business' can be netting millions

when I consider a 'mom and pop' store, I am thinking of the little consignment clothing store that ON A GOOD DAY makes 500 dollars in sale but most days is happy to pull in 200


all mom and pops are small business but not all small business is a mom and pop


as to your concern with rent and minimum wage.....

you can rent a space for as low as 500 per month for business space

at 200 per day that would STILL only be 60000 per year in sales

half a mill would be more like nearly 2000 a day in sales


I Have friends who own their own store, that would be a good/busy day for them,, and business has slow and busy days, not all or even most are gonna net a lot of sales EVERYDAY,,,,,especially considering what hours they stay open,,,,,

so IF I rented a space for 1400 a month and did have to pay 3 employees say 10 per hour to work 8 hours that's 240 per day or 72000 per year, plus the rent would be a total of 89000 per year out of that required 500000 in sales

still leaving over 400000


Total BS. There is not a single realistic statement anywhere in this.

First, just where did you come up with the lead statement on small business? Any clue? Let me help, start with Title 26, US code, it's defined very explicitly, as tax code.

And how does your little consignment store work? First, it's consignment which means someone else gets a cut for their ownership of the goods, normally at best case a 50/50 split. So let's say they are open 6 days a week and on average with good and bad days they average $300 a day, that would be $1800 in revenue with $900 in cost leaving a gross margin of $900.

Now let's say we accept your $500 a month for rent, that equates on a weekly basis of $115, now leaving $785. Now let's not forget the electric, water and sewage, lets just say $30 a week, and let's not forget about the insurance mandated by a landlord and his insurance company, another $25 a week and we have a net of $735 and we haven't even mentioned workers comp and unemployment nor those pesky local government bureaucrats wanting their cut. Still, that means a seemingly good earnings but is it really? Probably 12 hour days, 6 days a week and definitely not overtime, real earnings: $10.21 a hour.

But whoa don't go on any spending spree, here comes the IRS wanting 14.2% for FICA and Medicare, oh yes as self employed you pay the full boat, $104 and then federal income tax starting at 15%, another $110. And then you make way too much for subsidized medical, so even though we know it isn't really true, let's except the average cost of Odumbocare at $328 per month, that is still $75 leaving $446 take home pay.

And at $2000 a day with 3 employees, the expenses start going through the roof. And I have family and friends that run businesses in the $1 to $1.5 million in revenue. Their average salaries are little more than their best paid employee and at the end of the year their net after taxes are generally between 3 to 5 percent of revenue, not even doubling their salary.

So the picture is not the pretty scene you pretend exists. I would say more like never been there, never done that.



the point was the min wage was only applicable for those making SALES of 500000 or more per year,,,,

there are different types of businesses that aren't all corporations,, which title 26 deals with,,,,


,,,,I have 'family' too who run businesses or were responsible for the finances of businesses netting hundreds of thousands or millions,, and they could still afford to pay people a living wage,,,,,


its called making a business plan that works,,,,,

Well 500k in sales if they do no interstate commerce. If, however, they have a website where you can order stuff and they ship and and do sales out of state then they have to comply with federal minimum wage.

Chazster's photo
Thu 05/22/14 10:50 AM


Underwater doesn't mean they dont have a home. It means they owe more than it is currently worth. Most likely that means they bought it not long before the bubble burst If they paid so little so far.


I know... I was just thinking about all those who actually lost their homes too... and that the current homeowners who are already underwater might have to take the next step off the deep end and not be able to come back up. What then? Where do they all go?


Why would they have to step off the deep end? Just because you owe more than your home is currently worth doesn't mean you can't afford your payments. You are making a very large assumption here.

Chazster's photo
Wed 05/21/14 08:55 AM
Underwater doesn't mean they dont have a home. It means they owe more than it is currently worth. Most likely that means they bought it not long before the bubble burst If they paid so little so far.

Chazster's photo
Tue 05/20/14 06:13 PM





understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,,





You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit.



if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,,



Yes I was getting ready for the gym and was off by a power of 10. The point being its volume of sales. Its has nothing to do with costs of products or production or labor. If customers pay you a total of 500k a year you qualify. Like I said $200 a day for 300 days is already 100k over that value.


no,, 200 dollars a day for 300 days is only 60000 dollars,,,,


I will be the first to admit when I can't do math lol. You are correct.

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/19/14 08:32 PM

Affordable to those who qualify for the subsidy. Not affordable to the country as a whole.

If you think healthcare run by the government is good just look at what is happening with the VA. Vets being put on fake waiting lists so the books look good meanwhile dozens are dying because care has been rationed.

Now just imagine the VA multiplied 90 times and you have obamacare.


Just look at anything our government has run. It doesn't have a good track record.

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/19/14 08:18 PM



what is 'earning'?

is a housewife 'earning' the roof on her head and the food in her belly?

is a ceo 'earning' his six figure salary?

is a teacher 'earning' her five figure salary?

what determines why one should 'earn' more than the other and who determines , after they all WORK to earn something, which work should 'entitle' them to have the shelter , food , and 'luxury' items they are all trying to 'work for' but not all of them apparently have 'earned'?


n/m, no need to answer, I know we don't want people to be slaves, just accept their 'earnings' like they are,,,,


Housewife? That is up to the husband if she is earning it as he is supporting her.

The CEO, that is up to the shareholders who he represents. If they don't think so he is usually replaced.

The teacher, that is up to the school board who pays them.

You see it is the payer who determines if the payee is worth the check.


and only a 'check' gives a human enough value for food and clothing and shelter?


so, those in power should determine who they will 'value/pay' and if you aren't on that list, whatever you actually produce or contribute in your efforts

you have done less to 'earn' food, clothing, and shelter than someone who, in reality, may be putting forth MUCH less effort in their day and doing much LESS 'work'?


this seems, again, like a nice way to disguise slaveholder mentality

some should decide what others are worth, and those who aren't chosen to be of worth should just die off or be happy with scraps that the chosen agree to share?


You asked about earning not about if a person is worthy of necessities. If I give a homeless guy a dollar did he earn it? No, does that mean he he isn't worthy of that dollar? No.

Chazster's photo
Mon 05/19/14 08:11 PM



understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,,





You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit.



if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,,



Yes I was getting ready for the gym and was off by a power of 10. The point being its volume of sales. Its has nothing to do with costs of products or production or labor. If customers pay you a total of 500k a year you qualify. Like I said $200 a day for 300 days is already 100k over that value.

1 2 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 24 25