TakeYouToTasker

Appropriate to place here: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/23/news/economy/wealthiest-americans-background-family/index.html?section=money_news_economy It's all about the choices we make; and it's important to note that those choices are inter-generational. The decision people make today not only impact them, but will deeply impact the types of decisions their children and grandchildren will have to make.

It is important to note here that government intervention caused the Great Depression in the first place, and then to note that FDR's policies actually extended the depression all the way out to WWII.

We need policy that disincentivizes innovation, enterprise, investment, and wealth creation; in favor of baking a much smaller pie that some individuals will have a slightly larger share of? Do you have more food if you have 1% of a 100 lb. pie or 50% of a 1 lb. pie?

The FBI doesn't have the authority to indict. That decision falls to the DoJ. The FBI can recommend indictment.

It's hillarious when people sue their employer, and then believe they'll ever get a job within that industry (or often even any large employer at all) again.

It's not that I want it, it's that it's necessary. Such a senario would put us on a much more sustainable growth path once we went through a correction.

The realistic benchmark is for Johnson to his 5% of the national vote which would grant the Libertarian Party access to the federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund grant. In 2008, had Johnson achieved 5% he would have received around $9.5 million in federal funds for the operation of the 2012 campaign. To put this in perspective, Johnson raised $2.3 million for the 2008 campaign on his own. This sort of cash infusion has the power to permanently break the two-party system in this country.

A much needed correction. Savings today simply represent future spending, and it's a far more sustainable model for real growth than the one we have today.

First, you'll need to explain to me why the decision to leave rural Mississippi isn't a choice. Then you'll need to explain to me why you're using mean instead of median. (my hunch is that either you don't realize that median speaks to actual individuals, and reflects wage mobility, while mean is nothing more than a much less meaningful aggregate; or that you're trying to muddy the waters with less pertinent data) Then you'll have to explain why anyone should be paid more than their market value bears out. Finally, you'll have to explain why you believe that low wage skill sets are isolated rather than transferrable to other higher paying jobs.

This links to a chart citing the median income, by state: https://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20121101/bci_data/median_income_table.htm The lowest single earner median income for any state is $35,505 in Mississippi. If you aren't earning at least that much, it's because of personal choices you made. FYI: I used the word "entitled" because you stated that individuals may not be being compensated "fairly".

You're claiming I said anyone was a loser, and I'm the one putting words in to your mouth? The reality is that anyone who makes good decisions aimed at a hefty salary as a goal of their employment can do so. Anyone who chooses to enter into careers that don't offer much in the way of compensation or mobility has no one to blame but themselves.

I'm insufferable because you refuse to take responsibility for your own life choices, and think you are entitled to more than the market dictates you are worth? Again: you made choices. Those choices are no one else's responsibility. And I'm not arguing with you. I'm pointing out facts.

You chose to work in a field that doesn't offer much in the way of compensation, and you don't want to change fields... Those are choices that you made. You could have chosen to go into a field that offers much higher compensation, but you didn't. You could have chosen to change careers, but you didn't. You could have chosen to get your masters sooner, but you didn't. The reality is that you are at fault for your compensation, because of choices you made.

I consider 20-25k per year entry level pay for an unskilled worker with no experience fresh out of high school or college. During that time, young people should be accumulating skills and experience, and living on a shoe-string budget. Sacrifices should be made to social life and living arrangements as necessary. Once you have a few years in the labor force, you will be able to transition into better paying jobs or positions assuming a good work ethic and a desire for self improvement.

If you can accomplish these three things, you have an exceptional chance of not being poor in America: 1. Don't get pregnant out of wedlock 2. Graduate from high school 3. Get and keep a job

There is nothing wrong with shaming a wedding store for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. That's how free market principals work. The problem is when you look to legislate and force people to do something.

If Johnson gets 5% it's a major game changer for years to come.

I don't think anyone is saying that they can't. What they are doing is publicly shaming them for it.

Would you rather pay for it, tax payer?

If you carry a semi-smooth rock in your pocket it will repel mountain lions, and prevent you from being attacked.

Hey there, bad guys! Knock off all that evil!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

First time I've ever seen a strawman allowed to be maimed by a black bear.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/05/17/shopper-upset-man-allowed-to-use-womens-dressing-room-in-ross/