- This topic has 294 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2011 at 9:45 AM #707962June 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM #706804
scaredyclassic
ParticipantArbeit macht frei.
Hey is that a hitler stopper?
June 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM #706902ParticipantArbeit macht frei.
Hey is that a hitler stopper?
June 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM #707502ParticipantArbeit macht frei.
Hey is that a hitler stopper?
June 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM #707652ParticipantArbeit macht frei.
Hey is that a hitler stopper?
June 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM #708017ParticipantArbeit macht frei.
Hey is that a hitler stopper?
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM #706874CA renter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
If the properties aren’t owned by the people who live in them, then the residents (productive workers) are giving up their wealth (earned income) to those who earn their money via capital vs. labor. As a general rule, those who earn their living via capital tend to be wealthier than those who earn their living via labor.We need to determine if we, as a society, benefit more from having stable communities where the residents and local workers own their own homes, or if we benefit more from having legions of renters who pay most of their wages to the rentier class (landlords) who tend to have more capital than the people who live in those houses — which further exacerbates the growing wealth divide, and all the problems that go with it.[/quote]
Nothing you said has anything to do with rights. Society that’s the most free is best in my eyes. Freedom for the rich, the poor, the fat, the skinny, etc. There should never be a group that get singled out and have their freedom taken away from them. Which is why i think America is still the best country among the developed countries.[/quote]IMHO, when workers are forced to give up most of their wages to a tiny group of people who control almost all of the world’s assets, they are not free.
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM #706973Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
If the properties aren’t owned by the people who live in them, then the residents (productive workers) are giving up their wealth (earned income) to those who earn their money via capital vs. labor. As a general rule, those who earn their living via capital tend to be wealthier than those who earn their living via labor.We need to determine if we, as a society, benefit more from having stable communities where the residents and local workers own their own homes, or if we benefit more from having legions of renters who pay most of their wages to the rentier class (landlords) who tend to have more capital than the people who live in those houses — which further exacerbates the growing wealth divide, and all the problems that go with it.[/quote]
Nothing you said has anything to do with rights. Society that’s the most free is best in my eyes. Freedom for the rich, the poor, the fat, the skinny, etc. There should never be a group that get singled out and have their freedom taken away from them. Which is why i think America is still the best country among the developed countries.[/quote]IMHO, when workers are forced to give up most of their wages to a tiny group of people who control almost all of the world’s assets, they are not free.
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM #707572Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
If the properties aren’t owned by the people who live in them, then the residents (productive workers) are giving up their wealth (earned income) to those who earn their money via capital vs. labor. As a general rule, those who earn their living via capital tend to be wealthier than those who earn their living via labor.We need to determine if we, as a society, benefit more from having stable communities where the residents and local workers own their own homes, or if we benefit more from having legions of renters who pay most of their wages to the rentier class (landlords) who tend to have more capital than the people who live in those houses — which further exacerbates the growing wealth divide, and all the problems that go with it.[/quote]
Nothing you said has anything to do with rights. Society that’s the most free is best in my eyes. Freedom for the rich, the poor, the fat, the skinny, etc. There should never be a group that get singled out and have their freedom taken away from them. Which is why i think America is still the best country among the developed countries.[/quote]IMHO, when workers are forced to give up most of their wages to a tiny group of people who control almost all of the world’s assets, they are not free.
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM #707724Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
If the properties aren’t owned by the people who live in them, then the residents (productive workers) are giving up their wealth (earned income) to those who earn their money via capital vs. labor. As a general rule, those who earn their living via capital tend to be wealthier than those who earn their living via labor.We need to determine if we, as a society, benefit more from having stable communities where the residents and local workers own their own homes, or if we benefit more from having legions of renters who pay most of their wages to the rentier class (landlords) who tend to have more capital than the people who live in those houses — which further exacerbates the growing wealth divide, and all the problems that go with it.[/quote]
Nothing you said has anything to do with rights. Society that’s the most free is best in my eyes. Freedom for the rich, the poor, the fat, the skinny, etc. There should never be a group that get singled out and have their freedom taken away from them. Which is why i think America is still the best country among the developed countries.[/quote]IMHO, when workers are forced to give up most of their wages to a tiny group of people who control almost all of the world’s assets, they are not free.
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM #708087Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
If the properties aren’t owned by the people who live in them, then the residents (productive workers) are giving up their wealth (earned income) to those who earn their money via capital vs. labor. As a general rule, those who earn their living via capital tend to be wealthier than those who earn their living via labor.We need to determine if we, as a society, benefit more from having stable communities where the residents and local workers own their own homes, or if we benefit more from having legions of renters who pay most of their wages to the rentier class (landlords) who tend to have more capital than the people who live in those houses — which further exacerbates the growing wealth divide, and all the problems that go with it.[/quote]
Nothing you said has anything to do with rights. Society that’s the most free is best in my eyes. Freedom for the rich, the poor, the fat, the skinny, etc. There should never be a group that get singled out and have their freedom taken away from them. Which is why i think America is still the best country among the developed countries.[/quote]IMHO, when workers are forced to give up most of their wages to a tiny group of people who control almost all of the world’s assets, they are not free.
July 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM #706884sdrealtor
ParticipantIsnt someone who rents more free to move than someone who owns? In today’s society mobility is a huge asset to workers. Being a renter could easily be viewed as a net positive to society for most workers. of course we would have to exclude the entitled public sector workers who expect stable life time employment which others dont enjoy.
Once again where you stand depends upon where you sit.
July 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM #706983ParticipantIsnt someone who rents more free to move than someone who owns? In today’s society mobility is a huge asset to workers. Being a renter could easily be viewed as a net positive to society for most workers. of course we would have to exclude the entitled public sector workers who expect stable life time employment which others dont enjoy.
Once again where you stand depends upon where you sit.
July 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM #707582ParticipantIsnt someone who rents more free to move than someone who owns? In today’s society mobility is a huge asset to workers. Being a renter could easily be viewed as a net positive to society for most workers. of course we would have to exclude the entitled public sector workers who expect stable life time employment which others dont enjoy.
Once again where you stand depends upon where you sit.
July 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM #707734ParticipantIsnt someone who rents more free to move than someone who owns? In today’s society mobility is a huge asset to workers. Being a renter could easily be viewed as a net positive to society for most workers. of course we would have to exclude the entitled public sector workers who expect stable life time employment which others dont enjoy.
Once again where you stand depends upon where you sit.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.