Oh look, a bigoted squirrel over there!

Imagine masher as a Doctor "Okay, you appear to have a large cut on your right arm; it appears to be immigrants and I am sorry but we have to amputate." Apparently immigrants are also the leading cause of cancer and impotence.

I mean, everything in the world is the fault of Immigrants, apparently even gender discrimination, right?

Well, of course- where do you think machismo comes from??

Yeah, not what masher is obsessed with, so no idea where that came from. Try reading it all again. And then again.

Oddly the whole free trade thing is a Clinton/Democratic thing. NAFT during Bubba's term and the TPP now being negotiated under Obama. Neither of these neoliberal trade agreements are friend to the American worker. Both however are the friends of corporations.
Why is it that either party is in the pockets of international corporations?

Why is it that you blame parties as if the union vote weren't already split?

Unions are foolish for not starting their own political party.

I'm not so sure. Congress simply isn't set up to accommodate a powerful third party. This is a structural problem, as well as one of corruption.

They have, it is called the Democrats

Correction: They USED to, and it WAS called the Democrats--before they sold out.

I believe that the labor movement has their own political party, several parties in fact. But they are apparently no match for the big-money corporate duopoly that always outspends them.

"the whole free trade thing is a Clinton/Democratic thing."

Yeah, all those Republicans are *SO* opposed to all that "Free Trade" stuff....

Hence the "either party is in the pockets of international corporations" line. When it's heads we win tails you lose the game is rigged for the corporate/union bribers.

Republicans are opposed to Crony Capitalism not free trade.

I think this is where the confusion lies. There is a difference between Capitalism, which is free trade and Crony Capitalism which our present government continues to sell.

I keep hearing this from the most ardent supporters of capitalism, such as LOLbertarians. But truly "crony capitalism" IS real capitalism. A distinction without a difference indeed.

"The strongest support in the House came from Republicans, who cast 132 votes for the trade plan and 43 against it. Among Democrats, 102 voted for the agreement and 156 opposed it. The one independent in Congress voted against the plan."

http://articles.latimes.com...

Now I know what a well programmed trollbot sounds like..... My compliments to your programmer. I just wish that she had an interest in more than one topic....

"I just wish that she had an interest in more than one topic...."

That's what you get when you hire immigrants to code for you.

Immigrants aren't hired to do coding. The coding is all sent overseas to be done. It's much easier to use poorly trained, inexperienced coders that way.

Thanks, Captain Off-Topic! My advanced degree in reading comprehension tells me that the actual topic of the article is that the Governor of Florida, who repubs want to shove down everyone's throats as a possible candidate for President, is completely clueless regarding a major issue. But please masher, do go on.

You know what happens when the government sticks its nose in employers business with regulations on hiring, firing and wages? Those employers stop hiring for fear of inability to hire who they want to hire,fire who they want, law suits and other inflated high costs such insurance and wage creep set by the government.
Let me put it this way, my employer will not give me a raise no matter how good I am at my job for fear he will be prosecuted for not giving the other guy a raise too. Once I know that, why should I bother to do the best job I can if I cannot be rewarded for it?

Worst yet, businesses fail and no one is employed. It is best to have mobility in market place for your job skill set than let the government set your wages. People should be paid for what they are worth to the employer not the government. Don't like your wage?, ask for more if if not given, then move on. No one owes you a living, you have to earn it.

In effect There is no such thing a income inequality. You are being duped for political gain.

Of course, all the nations with the highest standards of living (as well as healthiest, best educated, and happiest populations) have minimum wages that are also living wages.

How do you suppose they're able to force companies to pay a living wage AND still have the highest standards of living? Along with national health care?

DOH!

It does not go unnoticed that you did not address one thing I said. You just repeat the mantra that has been spoon fed you to accept without question. What you think you know you don't, it is a myth. OK, just know this, there is a whole other way of viewing economics than than through socialistic rose tinted glasses. Take a close look at those countries and tell me if the people are better off. Start with Venezuela and Cuba. Every country where socialism has been tried is a failure.

I am done with this conversation. Take it of leave it.

Uhm, yeah, they're better off in Norway, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Holland-- hell, almost all of Europe. Since I did mention happiness which is when the people of a country say how happy they are, I think they're in a better position to judge than you are.

And BTW the countries with the HIGHEST minimum wage also have the HIGHEST standards of living. That's b/c their people all make enough to be taxed, and those taxes ensure that public services are excellent.

And they're not socialist. You're in la-la land.

But, since you bring it up, yes, Venezuelans are MUCH better off since Chavez brought them a more socialised economy (Uraguayans under Morales as well) to the tune of up to 800% increase in standard of living.

Amen to that.

Zing! Tell it, Kit Kimberly! LOLbertarians can't seem to wrap their minds around those inconvenient facts, it seems.

The slaves had jobs...what " cost" is low enough?

Slavery is perfectly fine according to hardcore LOLbertarians. As long as it is done by the private sector and the slaves "voluntarily" sell themselves into slavery, that is. Even if it is by utter dint of economic necessity to avoid starvation, they still call that "voluntary". Because FREEDUMB! Or something. Of course, such a system would require some sort of state to legally enforce such "contracts", which is apparently also OK according to LOLbertarians. Yes, they really do believe that. (facepalm)

Oh look, an Austrian crank economist walked in. Hi, there!

The problem isn't immigration. The problem has been that US worker productivity has dramatically increased since ~1970s, yet wages as adjusted for inflation have remained relatively flat.

So where did all the output from all that increased productivity go? Right into the pockets of the top echelons of the corporation, that's where.

Our economy is improving and growing, but the results of that growth have been funneled into the pockets of a very few through the legal system that those same people bought and paid for through Congress.

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. The oligarchs have been seriously ROBBING the working class for decades now, siphoning off the fruits of OUR labor into THEIR own pockets. Masher is clearly derailing.

masher, you are so right. It seems so obvious, but of course you will now be called a racist.

I agree that so-called "free trade" (NAFTA, etc.) is a HUGE part of the problem, and that overpopulation (including, but not limited to, excessive immigration) does contribute to a host of environmental and socio-economic problems. But those are really just symptoms of the bigger cause of income inequality and declining wages, which is the oligarchy as well as the larger kyriarchy. In the mid-20th century, 1935-1980, the oligarchs were kept on a pretty tight leash via 1) high marginal tax rates on rich individuals and corporations, 2) strong labor unions, 3) a strong social safety net, and 4) reasonable government regulations. The system worked very well, if imperfectly. But when Ronnie Raygun (zap) and his cronies took over in 1981, they basically removed that leash for the most part. Ditto for their successors as well since then. And as they say, the rest is history.

Also, what you said has little if anything to do with gender discrimination.

I was told that Jeb was the smart Bush!

He is.

Yes, just like the bush elephant is the small elephant.

Oh snap!

Which doesn't say much, lol!

That's the shame. He really IS. It's all relative, in more ways than one.

Yet another clueless Republican, and he's suppose to be the smart one. Can't wait to see the fully loaded Republican Nomination Clown Car.

I'd also like to see a few of the Democratic nominees besides the war mongering, corporate tool Hillary.

Bush: "Equal pay for the same work, not for equal work—I think that's the problem with it. I think there's a definition issue."

That's not a definition issue, Jebbie-boy, it's a semantic one.
In other words: you screwing over half of America by playing word games.

Good luck enforcing this if it becomes law. Sure, people will sue under it and companies will provide examples of men who make less than women in the same job category.

It's the same problem with proving age or religious discrimination. In each case, an employer can come up with a reasonable explanation to address why someone was paid less or not hired or not promoted.

It's unfortunate as discrimination happens. It's just tough to prove.

Hard to prove does not mean we can not set up the playing field to allow it to be proven.

Being excellent support for specific civil suits, is not the only reason to pass a law... but you knew that, of course.

Seriously? Seriously? Waiting for the day no woman is stupid enough to vote for men who are too lazy/stupid to research things like this, or are weasels lying liars who don't give a hoot about women.

jeb bush doesn't know what the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2014 is, but why should he? That is not an issue in the circles he move in....well, actually it is, but only in discussions on how to keep defeating it,
like it was by filibuster on 15 OCT 14. The 1% crowd, corporate America
have a vested interest in keeping women's pay low, they can keep
hundreds of millions for themselves doing so. Yet for some unexplainable
reason many women, in an act of political masochism, will vote for the
very people who are committed to deprive them of earning a fair and
equal wage and who are also committed to denying them and their families
any social safety net benefits. It just boggles the mind. Maybe this
piece from Mother Jones will change more than a few minds. Remember, it was jeb's mother, barbara "babs" bush who said while visiting the Super Dome in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina who said " everyone I've talked to says, 'We're going to move to Houston.'
What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in
Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were
underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them. " It is no wonder jeb doesn't know anything about the Paycheck Fairness Act....

You people just strike at the first shiny thing. The act is nothing but political garbage, just before the election! Nobody's falling for this, that's why it's in Mother Jones! you can't go any lower, well, maybe MSNBC, but, still you must be really desperate. Why don't you bring up save the whales and run on that too! Tell us how Republicans hate the Whales, it's true!! I went to a republican meeting, and, they were sitting around counting their money, and, throwing darts at pictures of women going "man I hate them whales!" darn Republicans!!