Fair questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

We have a guarantee by law that we get treatment whitin 3 mouth.

They changed hip on my grandmothers "boyfriend" even though he had long gone col.
He was in such a bad shape he died 6 mouth later.

We are not as free of choice as you are but I trust we get the best treatment anyway. I live close to a university Hospital so they have a lot of experts here. Can't answer how it is elsewhere.
I know football isn't a big sport in US and you might not know of Zlatan.
Anyway he is a professional player, one of the best in the world. He came to "my" hospital to have a knee surgery when he could have gone anywhere in the world to do it.

The government we have now is more into making the rich richer then careing for the less fortunate ones. I can't say I feel they spend our money wisely.

But overall I think it is worth paying the taxes we do.
It might feel unfair that the rich pays for the poor but I feel that if you have a lot you can afford to pay more.

Biggest difference in politics US vs Swe I think is that our right is more left then your left is.

Very good post JACKIPE. A good example is this:

I have several tenants who are on section 8, meaning the government pays for their rent and some of their utility's to. Most of these folks are young and healthy, several are not even married but have children together and live a pretty good life staying home. Most, if not all, spend all day smoking cigarettes and drinking.

When I was young i had to work, most of the time I had to work 2 jobs in order to pay rent. A job at a fast food place was not a career but a stepping stone until you made your way into a real career and life work.

We do not believe in the entitlement society as much as we believe that a person should work hard to get what he needs to survive. YOU CANT LIVE LIFE FOR FREE. YOU WILL COLLAPSE THE COUNTRY IN WHICH YOU LIVE IN.

I understand that sometimes a person needs help, goodness knows I have needed help, but let the help be for only a certain amount of time and make the person train to become a member of the workforce, providing the person is healthy and able to.

I totaly agree with you Dave.

But I think you should raise the minimum wage so people can make a living on it.
Not a life in wealth but enugh to survive on your own.

Me thinks someone deleted me post. That was trashy...

Really, if that's true than that's not good. I was just going to say how nice it was that we had a discussion here at the bar and no one was rude, everyone was able to share their thoughts and no one called anyone any names. I am very proud of all of you.

I very much appreciated the thoughts of others from different countries.

Now MANFRED, I have to fly later today, can I please have a grape nehi and a hot dog.

Thought I'd posted about the really poor and needy being unable to get benefits, while others who are professionals at gaming the system have it down to a science....

It's not there now... Hmmm

bellsaj wrote: I totaly agree with you Dave.

But I think you should raise the minimum wage so people can make a living on it.
Not a life in wealth but enugh to survive on your own.

The problem with raising minimum wages is this. It raises the cost of everything else, thereby negating any gain that those who recieve the "raise" get. The real problem (and this includes a lot of different things) is inflation and over regulation. Regulatory compliance costs businesses insane amounts of money, thereby raising the cost of their goods and services to the final consumer. Laws are necessary, but we need to be a LOT more careful about making sure that they are absolutely necessary, and will provide the impact that we are trying to achieve. More often than not, laws are enacted that create jobs for other people. A big push in my industry right now is for sleep apnea testing for drivers. Granted, if you have it, then PLEASE take care of it. But, by making the problem seem a lot worse than it is, the lawmakers are wanting to force us to be tested. The law of averages also ensures that many will also need to be treated. That is great news for the clinics that test this, the equipment manufacturers who provide testing equipment, the doctors who treat it, the equipment makers who make the treatment machines, and so on. It might be time to buy stock in the companies who provide the bulk of this equipment... See where we are going? Our lawmakers create an artificial crisis, which creates an artificial need for a solution for a problem that barely exists thereby ensuring high profits for certain industries that they can invest in and make a great profit. It's a great racket.

If you couple this with the systematic devaluing of our currency (ie bailouts), said dollar isn't going to buy anything. Raise minimum wage? Then it's going to buy even less.

But hey, I'm just a truck driver. What do I know?

Minimum wage is not meant to be lived on, it is meant for young people at their first job with no skills, and they don't need a lot of money, and the job is just, like davy said, a stepping stone

An overall problem is big business. Hell, big business is why we are in this "recession" in the first place. They buy votes, do things like Monsanto and the GMOs, and hamper advancements as a society.
Big businesses get tax breaks and have lower costs because of bought votes. Small businesses are better to their employees than larger ones who don't work with their employees everyday. Also, when a big business does something bad, it's almost impossible to stop. The politicians wont stop it, and they are near impossible to boycott because they are omnipresent in many fields.

I think that we can solve the problems with all of this if we let small businesses prominent. That way, if you want the benefits of money, you have to work. Even if it isn't a high skills job, you will still get money. Also, changing unemployment so you have to be physically looking for a job, and taking away the rest of the benefits, such as welfare and section 8. If this happens, it will virtually eliminate most loopholes.

Feel free to respond with what you think

If minimum wage is only for young people it should only been givven to young people. To my knowledge its a way for companies to dump wage and profit more.

The companies care more for the profit to the shareholders then the employees.
It's a disaster if a company make a million less in profit then expected even if they made 100 instead of 101 million profit.

You know the only companies with public stocks and people to please? Big business, as I went on to say, small businesses tend to respect their employees more, and pay them better

To remain at or near the top of the pile, big money is still needed for big research and development. Big business does have its place in our society, for a lot of different reasons... But small business must be considered just as important. The answer to everything is always in the happy medium. When things get out of balance, everything goes haywire. My opinion anyway...

I am impressed that at your age Big C that you are trying to figure these things out. One tip, seek out not only opinions that you agree with, but also smart people who completely disagree with you and can give you good solid reasons why you are either wrong, or at least make you rethink your positions to make sure that you actually believe what you think you do.

There is nothing worse than a Kool-Aid drinker, irregardless of which side they are on. Always try to be objective and consider all sides to everything. It'll help you in the long run to make really good decisions and to have a good handle on the world around you.

That's why I said it is an overall problem. In the technology sector, we need big businesses such as apple and google. However, in areas such as food, small businesses- treat their employees better, give better products, and care about individual customers.

I get most of my facts from many mainstream sources, and I actually listen to a lot of different media, from all different biases. It's just that I don't like the big businesses ripping off and destroying the people.

Btw, sorry if I come across as harsh. Im tired. We did a lot at practice today, and I didnt get enough sleep since I had a lot of projects to finish last night for the end of the quarter.

Totally in agreement.

I'm small.

I'm big.

I respect.

Coffee please? Cream and SUGAR from all of you!

bellsaj wrote: If minimum wage is only for young people it should only been givven to young people. To my knowledge its a way for companies to dump wage and profit more.

The companies care more for the profit to the shareholders then the employees.
It's a disaster if a company make a million less in profit then expected even if they made 100 instead of 101 million profit.

Then I ask you all, How old were you when you made your 1st stock purchase? You can do it at 18 yr old you know? The one thing people forget is that we can all buy stocks and bonds and their not that expensive if done a few every month or once a year. It all adds up in the end, as long as you watch your stocks and know what their doing. If your young, say 20's 30's or 40's you should be buying some kind of stock at lest once or twice a year. It's not a game only for the Rich or big business it's for us all to use to get ahead. As for minimum wage, yes it was set up as a stepping stone but not just for the young but for everyone coming into the work force. It tells people this is the LEST a company can pay you for the job, so if your willing to work that job at that wage then it's all good, if not then move on and let the next man try it. That's my 2 cents anyway..... Now don't spend it all in one place

Pardon my ducking in for a sec to derail the discussion...I just wanted to thank the proprietor and barkeep for their recent good will and support. It's nice to have reaffirmed for you that the friends you think you have are, in fact, your friends...in some ways even nicer when they're the friends with whom you sometimes differ philosophically. Which spins us back to Jacklpe's sage advice to Big C about seeking out differing points of view. You won't get better counsel than that, C.

Can I pick up a bottle on my way back out the door? I got me a wicked jones for some Yoo-Hoo. Hold the straw.

--w--

Can I have my Big Mac meal with beer? And no ice on my beer please.

onsekone wrote: Can I have my Big Mac meal with beer? And no ice on my beer please.

Warm mac, warm beer. I don't judge, I just serve!
Manfred

Well that stepstone needs to be higher.
If that makes some ceo tremble and fall I'm shure he or she will have a parachute agreement to ease the pain.

Mr. Wigginbottom,

Glad to see you in here! Yoohooooooo. Oh wait, I guess I'm thinking of the yahoo commercial. We always have yoohoos chillin'. Love the cartons, you can slam 'em down with a squeeze and it goes down like an 8oz funnel shot.

We take all kinds in here. The only time when I don't serve, or when Jackie gives a silent nod to the muscle (or even worse a Benjamin to the pirate), is for the off-chance rude, overly irritating, big-mouthed closed-eared, and repetitively painful. We take stupid, smelly, and plain wrong, as evidenced by the regulars. But life is too short to put up with Rude.

Oh calm down guys. Don't get nervous like that. You know what I mean by rude, and it's not you. Face-down in a bowl of pumpernickel chips is fine, I got more bowls in back. Leave --J-- alone, he's fine right there.

Anyway Wigout, if Jackman and I agreed on everything, it would be horribly boring here. Yepper, seek out differing points of view, poke at them with a little deference, even if we still don't agree we might learn a thing or two in the process.

Anyone need anything? Last call. Oh wait, we don't close. Alright, bar is open.

Manfred

I believe one thing about wages: an employee's compensation should be commensurate with the value they are adding.

I've been an employee of several companies. When I was connecting my efforts to the company's bottom line and value to customers, I felt confident in my position, and I commanded a decent wage. If other employees did better for the customer than I did, I recognized that they were earning their higher wage, and I strove to do what they did. If others didn't add value as well as I did, they might get fired, or paid less. If other employees consistently out-performed me, I would fear demotion or perhaps termination if I didn't get my act together. I have moved jobs within a company to find a better fit for my skills.

The best companies for which I've worked have had their eyes open, judged employee capability, and paid well for high value. When I'm working my ass off trying to improve my skills and learn new ones, the last thing I want to see is some joker schlepping around adding little value but getting a high wage. It brings the whole company down. Companies not exercising judgment or doing it poorly are horrible places to work, IMO.

Just like I don't think governments should set prices for bread, I don't think governments should set wages. It ruins the system of judgment and pay-for-value. Yes, some companies will try to take advantage. But this is a highly transparent marketplace nowadays, and sweatshops get reputations and no one wants to work for those companies. These days, we aren't so tied to one job, and information is fluid. The one thing that I see a high minimum wage doing is causing companies to cut jobs. Talk about motivating companies to do more with less; a high minimum wage makes them do exactly that, IMO in the wrong way.

The company I run does not have jobs at that pay scale, thank goodness. All of our folks make triple digits per hour, because that's the value to the customer. If they don't like our wage and benefits and company culture, they will go work for the competitors. If we pay more for really great skills (which we do), we will keep good staff and not worry about turnover. But if someone set a high minimum wage for our business, I would be in a tough spot and a bunch of people wouldn't be working anymore.

My friend just started a sandwich shop. She is creating entry-level jobs, and delivering something that customers will pay for. Employees can decide to work at her shop for her wages etc., or not. Unless employers have some unearthly power to suck people in and abuse them as captives, what good would a minimum wage do? There are laws against abuse, discrimination, extortion, ... and people have good access to law enforcement and legal protection. Am I being naive in thinking that this is a free market? Raising minimum wage for her shopkeepers would cause her to close the place, or maybe hire one less person and run them beyond their capability, which I know she wouldn't do, so the place would close. And I could easily name two dozen shops in the same predicament.

Manfred

I guess I'm not as familiar with your system as you guys are and what we get to see is the backside of it. Singel parents forced to work 2-3 workes just to put a roof over their heads and sometimes food on the table. The older children have to raise the younger ones because the parent workes from early morning to late night.

At my company we have a wage ladder with fixed steps depending on knowledge/skills and years in the company.
Good or bad?
I'm working in a production chain kind of Toyota model.
The company decide how much we are to do in a day and we can't do more.
If something breakes we do less but never more.
If we get behind we have to worke on the weekends but that the system they have chosen.

I have reached the top many years ago and can never look forvard to a raise based on my own performance. Feels unfair sometimes but thats how it is.

That's the situation I was in Bell before I started my own business. I do work harder, and sacrifice more now, by I am not limited by anyone now.

Here is the polar opposite of my opinion- ill argue it, but I agree with what I said earlier more.

Private companies tend to think about their own higher-ups profits. This makes the workers have no representatives, and they are exploited. The way to solve this would be statism. By letting the governement have total control over the economy, they would decide the economic decisions, including wages, what is bought from what country, and what the workers do. This would ensure, with the right leaders, that the people are never taken advantage of. This is called statism

Now that I'm done blowing sunshine up my own ass, statism wouldn't work because it would still be easy for the rich to bribe the government into what they want. Also, if the people wanted something changed, it would be as easy as not buying stuff from that company, they would have to have mass protest to change it.

I really miss the barter system. The Doctor came to your house, Did his thing and on the way out you gave him a chicken from the coop. The Smith fixed your wagon axel and you repaired his roof... Wish I had a Wagon...

BigC, your statism example is something like my friend from Singapore used to say. The best government is a benevolent dictator: no parties system to create waste, no voters to make dumb media-based decisions. Simple decisions made by one singular mind, with the good of all in mind. Heck, the person can even set wages.

Lol, then we wake up. No one exists like that, and if you plop someone into that position, they become corrupt in minutes. And if you define their role to all reaches, no one has that kind of knowledge or real-time information to make such micro decisions for everyone.

Dent is on it, I think. Barter is value. Negotiate on value. If no overlapping deal can be struck that is good for both, then no deal, and move on. And the extension using currency is : You don't want my company's services for my desired price, then move on. If employees don't like the wage, their guarantee that I am paying for value is that they can go work for my competition and put fear in me. If I am not paying enough toward value, I'll then be sure to slice my margins and come asking for those employees if they are so worth the wage; and if I don't do this, competitors will have better staff than I will. The role of government then is to ensure fair competition between companies, fluid information among customers, and fair practices so customers are not stuck with companies and can move freely. And fair competition between the employed, fluid information among them, and fair practices so employed are not stuck with companies and can move freely. No prices need to be artificially set, no wages need to be artificially imposed. Doesn't that work? And the role of government is to ensure freedom... hmm, sounds kind of like the Constitution of the U.S. and of some other countries.

Besides, with what information would government set the fair price of bread? Supply and demand is the only fair way. Forcibly set it too high and companies make too much profit over cost, aren't motivated to work to continuously reduce cost, customers pay too much, and consumer spending is stifled for other purchases and economies suffer. Forcibly set it too low and companies can't make enough money to justify doing it, and either stop making bread or close down. Pricing by natural supply and demand (in free markets, only in free markets!) is the only way to nail correct value.

And same with wages! As long as it's a free wage market, with no artificial barriers to movement, to say Take That Job and Shove It, or to say You Are Not Performing Buh-Bye. The numbers get arrived at by supply of skills and demand of skills. Skills being the total employee, with whatever is required of the job in technical, interpersonal, communication, and team leadership. If a union can collect up a group of workers for collective bargaining, that is good, but there shouldn't be artificial barriers on either end, and union fees must be minimal to fund the administration only and not line the pockets of union bosses. As with products and services markets, a free job market will allow bartering of value between employees and employers. Where a deal can be made, a job is filled. Where a deal cannot be made, an employer is left to redefine the wage so that they can fill the position.

Manfred

Manfred wrote: BigC, your statism example is something like my friend from Singapore used to say. The best government is a benevolent dictator: no parties system to create waste, no voters to make dumb media-based decisions. Simple decisions made by one singular mind, with the good of all in mind. Heck, the person can even set wages.

Lol, then we wake up. No one exists like that, and if you plop someone into that position, they become corrupt in minutes. And if you define their role to all reaches, no one has that kind of knowledge or real-time information to make such micro decisions for everyone.

Dent is on it, I think. Barter is value. Negotiate on value. If no overlapping deal can be struck that is good for both, then no deal, and move on. And the extension using currency is : You don't want my company's services for my desired price, then move on. If employees don't like the wage, their guarantee that I am paying for value is that they can go work for my competition and put fear in me. If I am not paying enough toward value, I'll then be sure to slice my margins and come asking for those employees if they are so worth the wage; and if I don't do this, competitors will have better staff than I will. The role of government then is to ensure fair competition between companies, fluid information among customers, and fair practices so customers are not stuck with companies and can move freely. And fair competition between the employed, fluid information among them, and fair practices so employed are not stuck with companies and can move freely. No prices need to be artificially set, no wages need to be artificially imposed. Doesn't that work? And the role of government is to ensure freedom... hmm, sounds kind of like the Constitution of the U.S. and of some other countries.

Besides, with what information would government set the fair price of bread? Supply and demand is the only fair way. Forcibly set it too high and companies make too much profit over cost, aren't motivated to work to continuously reduce cost, customers pay too much, and consumer spending is stifled for other purchases and economies suffer. Forcibly set it too low and companies can't make enough money to justify doing it, and either stop making bread or close down. Pricing by natural supply and demand (in free markets, only in free markets!) is the only way to nail correct value.

And same with wages! As long as it's a free wage market, with no artificial barriers to movement, to say Take That Job and Shove It, or to say You Are Not Performing Buh-Bye. The numbers get arrived at by supply of skills and demand of skills. Skills being the total employee, with whatever is required of the job in technical, interpersonal, communication, and team leadership. If a union can collect up a group of workers for collective bargaining, that is good, but there shouldn't be artificial barriers on either end, and union fees must be minimal to fund the administration only and not line the pockets of union bosses. As with products and services markets, a free job market will allow bartering of value between employees and employers. Where a deal can be made, a job is filled. Where a deal cannot be made, an employer is left to redefine the wage so that they can fill the position.

Manfred

What he said!!!

About the union.
Those who works in the union should have the same wage as if the wher working in the office or plant or whatever workers they are representing. No more no less.
The union fee isn't something that the can put in their own pockets... the union that allows a thing like that I believe is called the Mafia.

Can I have a White Russian please.
While you're at it, make it a double.

DR.DAVE mentioned stocks...keep an eye on the news....

Thanks to litterbug tendencies, there are roughly 500,000 pieces of "space junk" floating around in the cosmos. Consequently, the Air Force has to monitor all those pieces to make sure they don't collide with a U.S. asset -- such as a satellite or a space station.

Previously, Air Force Space Command estimated that the Pentagon was able to track "less than 5 percent" of space debris, using the aged Air Force Space Surveillance System, or AFSSS. As such, the Air Force commissioned a new program called Space Fence. It consists of a ground-based S-band radar system stationed in the Marshall Islands, with a possible secondary site in Australia. Further, the stationary radar creates a '"fence" that, over the course of a day, covers the whole of space because of the planet's rotation, according to Defense News. Additionally, the new system will be able to "detect, track and measure an object the size of a softball orbiting more than 1,200 miles in space," according to the Air Force.

What to watch
AFSSS was turned off at the beginning of September, and right now "stopgaps" are being used until the new fence can be deployed in late 2018. The new Space Fence contract was supposed to be awarded in June, but because of sequestration, it was pushed back. However, the Air Force considers the Space Fence program to be a major component of its space situational awareness capabilities, and now the contract is supposed to be announced anytime between November and March 2014. The only two contractors eligible for this win are Lockheed and Raytheon. Considering that the contract is worth an estimated $3.5 billion, this contract could be a major boost to the winning company's bottom line. As such, this is something investors should monitor.

Defense stocks are long term investments, just so you know.