The Future of the Ski Industry

deadheadskier said:

False

In fact the opposite is essentially true.

The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs. The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.

Click to expand...

You know the saying about statistics.

You know better than to use some Liberal talking point at 100% face value.

Out here in Wyoming we are constantly slammed for sucking on the govt teet, when in reality a lot of our government "assistance" is just keeping the highways maintained. Rural areas have low populations, so the per capita spending makes it look much worse than it is.

And you completely disregard the concept that maybe these rural communities don't actual want the handouts for all the reasons Benedict said.

You honestly believe places like NYC dont have large populations of poor people? Please....

AdironRider said:

You honestly believe places like NYC dont have large populations of poor people? Please....

Click to expand...

did I say that?

And wax it however you want, what I said is true and has been for a long time. And if they didn't want those funds, they as individuals or states don't have to apply for them.

deadheadskier said:

did I say that?

And wax it however you want, what I said is true and has been for a long time. And if they didn't want those funds, they as individuals or states don't have to apply for them.

Click to expand...

We could go on for pages on this, but there are strings attached to everything.

If you look into it, no state can pick and choose which programs they want and which ones they dont, as they are all intertwined. Like federal road funding being tied to the drinking age. Sure a state can let a kid drink at 18, but wont be able to maintain their roads as a result.

You know this so quit giving the rubes argument.

deadheadskier said:

False

In fact the opposite is essentially true.

The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs. The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.

Click to expand...

I think a lot depends on where you live. Southern states are more as you described. Same can be said for suburban vs. urban.

AdironRider said:

We could go on for pages on this, but there are strings attached to everything.

If you look into it, no state can pick and choose which programs they want and which ones they dont, as they are all intertwined. Like federal road funding being tied to the drinking age. Sure a state can let a kid drink at 18, but wont be able to maintain their roads as a result.

You know this so quit giving the rubes argument.

Click to expand...

The argument was how to win votes. Well, the guys who promise the most handouts don't get the votes in the states that take the most handouts. The opposite of what BG said.

What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period. So they may STILL need public assistance. So while Walmart is paying people shitty wages, offering few FT jobs with healthcare and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket. THAT is the problem with the poor, not their work ethic. Sure there is abuse - just as I'm sure there are abusers of college ski passes, switching tickets, reselling vouchers... It's the nature of people wanting "deals". But no reason to vilify all - many people need it and get back into their groove once their problems have passed. I bet everyone of is knows someone on SS for a disability...

Be nice people. I work at a safety net hospital...no one wants to be poor and if you think even the abusers are above poverty level, you're wrong. Forget about the abusers...they are a very small portion. I wish every person had the opportunities I was given, but they're not. And even if they have my work ethic, they still may be poor.

i grew up in the projects, single mom...we'd have been homeless but for gov't subsidized housing...she worked her ass off, sent herself to college with the help of gov't backed loans, and insisted that i would go to college as well...i earned a half ride playing lacrosse, paid for one year with work study, and the final year with gov't backed loans...have paid them all off, worked non-stop since graduating 20 years ago...she did better than her mother, and i did better than her, resulting in more tax revenue for all of us, and this is why it behooves a government to assist its citizens...a hand up, not a hand out

i know there are people who work very hard for what they have, and i'm one of them...i guess most would consider me upper-middle class...difference between me and the fox and friends echo chamber morons is that i don't want to cut everyone else off now that i have something...i didn't forget how i got here, and i'm all for helping someone who truly needs it

i also know that there are people who were born into a position of extreme privilege who think they are somehow above others, that they somehow deserve their privilege more than others and don't want to share the pie that was handed to them with anyone...born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple...these people can eat my ass

More please!

SkiFanE said:

What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period. So they may STILL need public assistance. So while Walmart is paying people shitty wages, offering few FT jobs with healthcare and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket. THAT is the problem with the poor, not their work ethic. Sure there is abuse - just as I'm sure there are abusers of college ski passes, switching tickets, reselling vouchers... It's the nature of people wanting "deals". But no reason to vilify all - many people need it and get back into their groove once their problems have passed. I bet everyone of is knows someone on SS for a disability...

Be nice people. I work at a safety net hospital...no one wants to be poor and if you think even the abusers are above poverty level, you're wrong. Forget about the abusers...they are a very small portion. I wish every person had the opportunities I was given, but they're not. And even if they have my work ethic, they still may be poor.

Click to expand...

Well said.

spring_mountain_high said:

i grew up in the projects, single mom...we'd have been homeless but for gov't subsidized housing...she worked her ass off, sent herself to college with the help of gov't backed loans, and insisted that i would go to college as well...i earned a half ride playing lacrosse, paid for one year with work study, and the final year with gov't backed loans...have paid them all off, worked non-stop since graduating 20 years ago...she did better than her mother, and i did better than her, resulting in more tax revenue for all of us, and this is why it behooves a government to assist its citizens...a hand up, not a hand out

i know there are people who work very hard for what they have, and i'm one of them...i guess most would consider me upper-middle class...difference between me and the fox and friends echo chamber morons is that i don't want to cut everyone else off now that i have something...i didn't forget how i got here, and i'm all for helping someone who truly needs it

i also know that there are people who were born into a position of extreme privilege who think they are somehow above others, that they somehow deserve their privilege more than others and don't want to share the pie that was handed to them with anyone...born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple...these people can eat my ass

Click to expand...

:flag:Good post.
I have come around to feeling similarly about immigrants. There are millions (almost literally) that have moved into the Wash DC area in recent decades. They work their butts off and do jobs none of us native born Americans would touch. I think we need to help a great many of these people fit in. They are working on the dream our ancestors chased in bygone years. With the changes in demographics and fertility rates we're going to need the taxes of these newcomers to pay for our old age benefits

jimk said:

:flag:Good post.
I have come around to feeling similarly about immigrants. There are millions (almost literally) that have moved into the Wash DC area in recent decades. They work their butts off and do jobs none of us native born Americans would touch. I think we need to help a great many of these people fit in. They are working on the dream our ancestors chased in bygone years. With the changes in demographics and fertility rates we're going to need the taxes of these newcomers to pay for our old age benefits

Click to expand...

+1

The talking heads on Faux news would have you believe they are all leaches gaming the system, sitting on street corners and playing with their Obama phones. That's not been my experience. Most work two jobs, as you said, doing jobs natives wouldn't touch.........just like my family did when they immigrated here from Ireland generations ago.

BenedictGomez said:

take that one step farther and ask why the cities/rural areas/regions that have received the most in welfare are chronically still the most poor. Bonus points if you begin to make the connection between systemic long-term welfare and geographical decline.

Click to expand...

Ummm.......

deadheadskier said:

False

In fact the opposite is essentially true.

The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs. The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.

Click to expand...

You're either not even reading what people say before you reply or there's a reading comprehension failure. I specifically stated that rural areas in some cases are top receiving areas (South basically). That said, AdironRider is also 100% correct in that this has been blown out of proportion and used as a DNC talking point due to lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's definitely true in places like Mississippi, parts of Tennessee, etc.... But if you genuinely believe that all-in these small population areas are truly receiving more than Chicago, LA, New York City, and numerous other cities, well then..........

AdironRider said:

Out here in Wyoming we are constantly slammed for sucking on the govt teet, when in reality a lot of our government "assistance" is just keeping the highways maintained. Rural areas have low populations, so the per capita spending makes it look much worse than it is.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You want to quickly turn this from a DNC talking point to an RNC talking point? Simple. Run the exact same analysis, but do it by km^2. Lol.

The roads money in general is subject to such ridiculous waste. Look at a state like Vermont that only has 2 highways. You get a road project there and the same project that takes 5 weeks elsewhere seems to take 5 years in Vermont so they can sssssssttttttttrrrrrrrreeeeeeeetttttccccccchhhhhhh the money. At least there's no potholes on 89. They don't have time to develop given the road gets repaved every 12 minutes.

While we're debunking talking points.

SkiFanE said:

What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with the gist of what you're saying, except that the minimum wage part.

The fact is, there are very few people in America that are actually paid Federal Minimum wage. There are about 330 Million Americans, and only roughly 3 Million are paid that rate. That is < 1% of Americans. In other-words, > 99% of people are earning MORE than Federal Miminum wage.

Also? A huge chunk, greater than 50%, of those 3 Millions folks are under the age of 25 and are high school or college students. Others are in their first job, learning VALUABLE SKILLS that will help them one-day more UP the pay ladder, which, statistically, almost ALL of them do. These minimum wage jobs are not the "abomination" they're politiclaly made out to be, rather, they are valuable on-the-job training. Financially speaking, if EVER there was a "red herring" economic topic, it's this myth that a huge percentage of the American public is struggling to survive on minimum wage, usually at the mercy of some "giant, evil, business".

Which segues nicely into the next totally false talking point....

SkiFanE said:

So while Walmart is paying people shitty wages

Click to expand...

Despite what you've likely heard, WMT pays significantly higher than Federal Minimum wage.

From WMT's own data, their average employee earns something like 80% more than minimum wage. Even if you go with the "anti WMT crusaders" data instead (which removes all store managers, which is totally unfair, acting as if somehow the store managers aren't human beings earning a paycheck), you arrive at an hourly wage significantly higher than minimum wage.

SkiFanE said:

(Walmart) offering few FT jobs with healthcare and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket.

Click to expand...

More than 1/2 of WMT's employees are FT, and they do get healthcare.

Look, I'm not saying that making $23,000 to $27,000 a year is a great job, but it's a job, it's a job with healthcare, and it's a job significantly above minimum wage. All things that these BS talking points entirely say the opposite of. Not to mention, for a lot of these people, if we're being entire honest they're dang lucky to have a job paying that ~$23,000.

BenedictGomez said:

, if we're being entire honest they're dang lucky to have a job paying that ~$23,000.

Click to expand...

Wow

That's harsh Rush

SkiFanE said:

What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period.

Click to expand...

When I was starting out, I worked 2 or 3 jobs, drove a beater car, and had roommates. Why should anyone only work 40 hours a week and get a 2 bedroom apartment all to themselves until they earn it?

BenedictGomez said:

While we're debunking talking points.



I agree 100% with the gist of what you're saying, except that the minimum wage part.

The fact is, there are very few people in America that are actually paid Federal Minimum wage. There are about 330 Million Americans, and only roughly 3 Million are paid that rate. That is < 1% of Americans. In other-words, > 99% of people are earning MORE than Federal Miminum wage.

Also? A huge chunk, greater than 50%, of those 3 Millions folks are under the age of 25 and are high school or college students. Others are in their first job, learning VALUABLE SKILLS that will help them one-day more UP the pay ladder, which, statistically, almost ALL of them do. These minimum wage jobs are not the "abomination" they're politiclaly made out to be, rather, they are valuable on-the-job training. Financially speaking, if EVER there was a "red herring" economic topic, it's this myth that a huge percentage of the American public is struggling to survive on minimum wage, usually at the mercy of some "giant, evil, business".

Which segues nicely into the next totally false talking point....



Despite what you've likely heard, WMT pays significantly higher than Federal Minimum wage.

From WMT's own data, their average employee earns something like 80% more than minimum wage. Even if you go with the "anti WMT crusaders" data instead (which removes all store managers, which is totally unfair, acting as if somehow the store managers aren't human beings earning a paycheck), you arrive at an hourly wage significantly higher than minimum wage.



More than 1/2 of WMT's employees are FT, and they do get healthcare.

Look, I'm not saying that making $23,000 to $27,000 a year is a great job, but it's a job, it's a job with healthcare, and it's a job significantly above minimum wage. All things that these BS talking points entirely say the opposite of. Not to mention, for a lot of these people, if we're being entire honest they're dang lucky to have a job paying that ~$23,000.

Click to expand...

And I'm sure people will hate this but joining the military is a great option for so many people. They will provide you with food, shelter, clothing, technical skills, etc. And on top of that the GI Bill will pay for you to go to whatever institution of higher learning you want.

MadMadWorld said:

And I'm sure people will hate this but joining the military is a great option for so many people. They will provide you with food, shelter, clothing, technical skills, etc. And on top of that the GI Bill will pay for you to go to whatever institution of higher learning you want.

Click to expand...

GI bill is good for sure but for me it only assisted...a small fraction really.

I'm actually regretful sometimes of ever serving....in some ways it sort of fucked me up. Travelling was nice I guess.....

deadheadskier said:

Wow

That's harsh Rush

Click to expand...

Do you know what the real unemployment rate is in this country right now?
Do you know what the underemployment rate is in this country right now?
Do you know what that unemployment rate rises to when split out by workers without an education?

So yes, I'll confidently stand by that statement - $23,000 to $27,000 plus healthcare & benefits isn't anything unusual, and in 2014 there are millions of Americans who'd clamor for that FT job.

And FYI, I gather this is going to shock you, but assuming a 2 individual home, that's pretty close to the 2013 median US household income.

mister moose said:

[/B]

When I was starting out, I worked 2 or 3 jobs, drove a beater car, and had roommates. Why should anyone only work 40 hours a week and get a 2 bedroom apartment all to themselves until they earn it?

Click to expand...

Because entitlement. I was the same as the above.

I made probably about the $24,000 per year that DHS apparently thinks is sad & destitute, while living in an old, small apartment in Burlington, VT (not a cheap place to live either) with a roommate, and paying off college loans.

I still had fun with friends, managed to ski (by working a 2nd job at Stowe), was happy, and had to be extremely financially responsible. And I didnt get or need a dime of government assistance. I know, THE HORROR!

The future of the ski industry: Doomed to political stereotyping and ankle-biting