Azalin

But I'm not talking about layoffs or job loss, I'm specifically addressing the notion that if an employee should gain extra income when the company reaps a windfall, why should they be insulated from monetary loss if the company performs poorly? The logic is that if the company did better than expected, then the employees were a part of that success and should get part of the excess as reward - that's a common argument used against companies and corporations. The problem is that literally nobody who supports that philosophy will ever support an hourly employee sharing in the loss if the company comes up short. Organized labor and "men of the people" would lose their collective minds if that was even suggested, and that reaction indicates that those people are not actually interested in fairness as much as they are in vilifying business.

That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

So fairness only works one way? If an employee stands to earn a windfall from company profits, it doesn't stand to reason that they should also share in the losses?

That was a classic "watch the birdie" moment that would catch just about anybody off-guard. Plus, it really doesn't make much sense once you think about it. You would think that at least one of the saviors would have yelled "hey, lookout! There's a %$#@ing tiger!". It's not like there wasn't a small crowd gathered around or anything. The viewer had no clue that Shiva was going to appear.

Exactly. Thank you.

Looks like we have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that an employee deserves anything more than what than what they agreed was a fair wage, regardless of how much profit a company may make. If a company wants to reward an employee further, then that's their prerogative. As an aside, when it comes to people advocating for employees sharing in company profits, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it would be fair to reduce an employee's pay if the company under-performs and fails to hit their projected profits. You're correct. I could have worded that better.

It's true that they volunteer for service, but they do get paid, receive health benefits, and have opportunity for free education and training so that they can enter a rewarding vocation wen they leave the service. Some even make entire careers out of it. It's both a vital and much appreciated vocation, but much of the rewards go beyond simply doing one's duty for the benefit of the country. That's why I didn't include military service members i my example. But even if you want to count them among people who volunteer purely for the sake of the nation, it still amounts to a very small segment of our society who do that with their lives.

Those are entirely different things. It's laudable to want to endeavor to the betterment of society, but self-interest and profit is what puts food on your table, a roof over your head, and provides a standard of living for those dependent on you. The only people I can think of offhand that seek to work purely for the betterment of others are volunteers (who earn nothing at all), philanthropists (who have already accrued monetary stability) or clergy.

I thought it looked pretty impressive too. Maybe in part because I was so surprised by the attack, but even considering that, I thought it was great.

The hills are alive......

Yep, I don't think that scene could have played out in a more entertaining fashion. I was thinking maybe Carl would be saved by a sniper or something at the last second, then all of a sudden Shiva bursts into the scene. Epic describes it perfectly!

You're right, at least going by what I see. Many people I know describe themselves as being socially liberal, fiscally conservative, big on personal liberties and property rights. Lots of them don't appear to realize that they fit the general description of a Libertarian or a Classical Liberal, apparently willing to settle for "independent" as the most appropriate title. Most of them also seem to want to remain separate from any kind of party affiliation.

You ought to read through this thread. There's some insightful material in there. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/192594-have-you-switched-sides-politically/

Judging by her lack of recollection during both the Whitewater and Benghazi hearings, I can see why she'd need to research her own memoir. Besides, when you've got to dig through that many decades of lies, keeping them straight in the retelling would pretty much require a significant amount of research.

That's even worse.

"To request election interference, press three and wait until the next election campaign. Please note that all calls are recorded for quality improvement and training purposes."

I imagine by now at least half of us are on double secret mental ignore.

That's because you're discussing economics and they're discussing politics. They can't address the topic without looking at it through an ideological lens. That's why I like reading the exchanges between GG and TPS - they come from different ideological points of view but can have reasonable and informed discussions on the subject.

Thankfully we have you to keep us in line and to remind us of our deficiencies as human beings. Doing God's work is a thankless endeavor at times, but try not to let that discourage you.

This is what kept coming to mind:

Here's a good one: Loyola University Chicago offers a campus club “for self-identified White students” to admit their own racist feelings and to complain about the racism they perceive around themselves. http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/this-56199-per-year-campus-offers-self-identified-white-students-a-safe-space-to-feel-guilty/#ixzz4cwUGyGUJ

Hey, lottery tickets are the poor paying their fair share.