Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 12:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7g6e$8qk_047(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <coWdnTYWpdohocvYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4kfj$8ss_031(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <dvidnWPSgamHfcnYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej211j$8qk_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <455485EB.84F083F4(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>>>I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>> >>>>>>Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>> >>>>> $10k/year? Yes. >>>> >>>>Blimey. Where in the US can you live (housing, food, fuel, clothing, >>>>transport) on $10k per year? I would love to know. I assume this does >>>>not >>>>include health care though.... >>> >>> It includes the government insurance. My folks, who are 2 people, >>> live on that little. Their income is social security and they >>> never maxed out on the payments. >> >>Interesting. Do they own their own property? Do they own their own car and >>machinery? Do they own land? Do they have any savings after a lifetimes >>work? > > Yes,yes,yes,no. The first three account for the vast majority of people's expenditure. >> >>Without resorting to soley personal anecdote, can you break down how >>someone >>can live on $10k a year? >> >>Think about: Rent, food, transport to and from work, work clothes, medical >>insurance and treatments, dental insurance and treatments, heating bills, >>cooking bills and so on. > > You don't rent or you figure out how to swap your time and/or labor > for rent. Swapping your time / labour for rent is called working. When people work they get paid and use that money to pay their rent. I am becoming intrigued about your desire to revert the US back to either communist or iron age society. It is interesting. Some one working 40 hours a week on minimum wage does not have much time left to "swap" for rent. Remember, this is not a debate on how to "get back to basics" but how someone in the developed world can live on a minimum wage. >> >>While it is unfortunate, it is often the case that retired people have to >>live on very little - however the assumption is that they have a >>_lifetime_ >>of earning to offset the costs of the final years (I'd like to see someone >>on $10k buy a house or even a car). > > For the car you pay cash. How? Where does this cash come from? The person is only earning $10k pa. How do they then insure the inevitable rust bucket death trap they have been forced to get? >> >>The problem comes when you say to an 18 year old school leaver - you have >>to >>make it in the big world on $10k pa. >> >>>>In the UK I would be amazed if _anyone_, even in council housing, could >>>>live >>>>on ?10k per year, let alone $10k. >>> >>> It's an interesting experiement. I'm trying to get to $10K. >> >>Likewise, you are not 18. You are not starting out from scratch. You >>probably have your own land to grow food. > > I won't tell you, then, what I lived on at 18. It wont be relevant. When I was 18 you could buy a house outright for ?20k. Now you need ten times that amount. You are, as usual, using to contradictory arguments over the minimum wage. You have posted that you think the minimum wage is so much it will force prices to rise to unacceptable levels - but you cant demonstrate that the minimum wage is even enough for a worker to live on, implying anything less is indeed slavery. At the same time you assert that hardly anyone would work for such a pittance as the minimum wage. Fantastic really.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 12:25 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45574C5F.B5F17477(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> We have several posters here rooting for the Iraqis and >> >> Arabs in general, speaking consistently against the US. >> > >> > And about that you would, once again, be wrong. Nobody is "rooting" >> > (as >> > if this were nothing more important than a football game) against the >> > US. >> > We are "rooting" (to stick with your offensive terminology) for the >> > Iraqis >> > to stop getting killed for no good reason (no sectarian violence there >> > before we decided to stick our nose in where it doesn't belong), and >> > for >> > decency, sanity and honesty in the way the US applies its foreign >> > policy. >> >> it is especially funny as one of the arguments used is that the invasion >> was >> to "help" the Iraqis. Now they are the enemy. >> >> Interesting set of double standards. > > Don't worry. Eventually the Iraqis will be "free to so do what we tell > them" ! Yes. Well, I suppose death is "freedom"....
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> Now think about why they can't afford it. > > > >Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. Other > >expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. > > No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff > for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well > as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because > they don't have to pay as much for it. You're not addressing my point, ot you're arguing in favour of inadequate health care for ppl who aren't well off. In the above you seem to think that poorer ppl *really could* pay say $300 p.m. for drugs. I say they simply don't have the kind of income to afford it without starving. How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I am stating that the cause of the problems is not the cure. Eh ? I don't think anyone was suggesting that ! Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 12:29
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45575932.B655E661(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:04:58 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >You're confusing cause and effect. You assume that, because those are >> >religious and legal prohibitions, that they came to have legal status >> >because of their religious status. I would suggest that both are based >> >on >> >the natural law that both murder and theft are bad for society. >> --- >> "Natural" law stems from religious roots. > > Which religion ? > > The Romans had laws you know. All cultures did. The pagan Danes had an excellent set of law codes - lots of English common law stems from this period. All societies recognise the need to establish common standards of behaviour to ensure people can "live together" and it is false to assume that the ensuing laws stem from "religious roots." |