Subscribe via RSS Feed

Just Pay Them

[ 140 ] November 24, 2012 |

When employers complain about a lack of skilled workers, what they tend to really mean is “a lack of skilled workers willing to work for subsistence wages.”



Comments (140)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ploeg says:

    Money graph of the linked New York Times article:

    In a recent study, the Boston Consulting Group noted that, outside a few small cities that rely on the oil industry, there weren’t many places where manufacturing wages were going up and employers still couldn’t find enough workers. “Trying to hire high-skilled workers at rock-bottom rates,” the Boston Group study asserted, “is not a skills gap.” The study’s conclusion, however, was scarier. Many skilled workers have simply chosen to apply their skills elsewhere rather than work for less, and few young people choose to invest in training for jobs that pay fast-food wages. As a result, the United States may soon have a hard time competing in the global economy. The average age of a highly skilled factory worker in the U.S. is now 56. “That’s average,” says Hal Sirkin, the lead author of the study. “That means there’s a lot who are in their 60s. They’re going to retire soon.” And there are not enough trainees in the pipeline, he said, to replace them.

    • DrDick says:

      Nobody (other than Republicans) ever said that the MOTU were very bright or even had any clue what they are doing.

    • Mike G says:

      The Randians who exalt “market forces” are suddenly struck with a bout of imperial mercantilism when those market forces indicate they need to raise the pay of the untermensch who don’t inhabit the executive suite or their country club.

      • LosGatosCA says:

        It’s not just the Randians. Republicans in general see themselves as fully justified in whatever they do as a ‘matter of principle’ compared to the ‘evil self destructiveness’ of those DFH’s, like those workers at Hostess.

        But it’s not limited to who may withhold their value from the marketplace under what circumstances. Consider the double standard that let’s them call themselves patriots as they talk of secession and attack Democrats that don’t wear flag lapel pins.

        Their world view is simply what’s good for the current aristocracy is good for them, and what’s crap for everyone else is owed to the aristocracy.

        Everything else is just noise.

    • cpinva says:

      what it actually means is that those employers claiming an inability to find appropriately skilled workers are liars. they aren’t actually trying to hire anyone, they’re just making loud noises. if they truly needed employees, to keep up with demand, they’d hire them, and pay the going market rate. they don’t.

      in my world, it’s called basic economics.

  2. Barry Freed says:

    Workers of the World, Go Galt!

    • NBarnes says:

      Amusingly, this is more or less what’s happening. The sorts of highly skilled workers that Our Galtian Overlords want to hire for pennies on the dollar are walking away, leaving the Makers to wonder, if they are the Makers, why their assembly lines aren’t making anything.

      Or, put better;

      • cpinva says:

        they aren’t making anything, because there’s no demand for whatever is that they make, not because they’re unable to fill the positions needed.

        leaving the Makers to wonder, if they are the Makers, why their assembly lines aren’t making anything.

        but it sounds better for them to lie.

  3. JL says:

    So, reading the description of these jobs in the NYT, they are basically beefed-up IT jobs. Troubleshooting the hardware and software has been IT’s job everywhere I’ve worked (and the hardware and software in this case sounds like it requires more skill areas to maintain than a desktop computer).

    Yeah, if you tried to hire IT for $10/hour, you’d get laughed at. Even beginner tech support/helpdesk people at crappy companies make more than double that. Even undergrads doing work-study helpdesk jobs part-time make that much or more at some universities.

  4. Green Caboose says:

    This is so true.

    At a local community where I used to be on the board the manager complained about not being able to get good workers for $11.50/hour to fill the covenant enforcement position. $11.50 – for a job that requires lots of detail and accuracy and is mainly about getting grief from irate homeowners. The manager opined that the problem was no one would take the position due to unemployment insurance.

    This manager is a real piece of work. Totally into the right wingnutosphere, totally buys into the 47% myth, and (because I know his salary) he has no concept that he’s one of the 47% because he pays SSN and medicare on his 1040 but no income tax. No idea that he’s PRECISELY the sort of person who will benefit greatly from Obamacare.

    These are the people that kept the GOP within a few percentage points of winning in 2012 … these are the people who vote against their own interest … yes, in part due to racial/tribal issues … but also in large part because the Democrats are so pathetically bad at communicating what their policies actually do.

  5. howard says:

    i only have a moment so i can’t take the time to click through the links, but in a nutshell, this is why the most pro-worker policy in the world is a pro-growth policy, as we saw in the late ’90s.

    this is also a reminder that jobs created because of demand, not thanks to the benevolence of a “job creator.”

    • DrDick says:

      The economy is, and always has been, entirely demand driven and most of that demand comes from workers. The more money workers (and the poor) have, the greater the demand and the more growth in the economy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Just like the USSR right DrDick? No nasty capitalists to take away money from the workers there right? So it must have been an economic paradise right? Lol.

        • Malaclypse says:

          Okay, so I think Jennie is saying there was no consumer demand in the USSR. I would like to believe that nobody could be that pig-fuckingly ignorant, but then I remember Jennie’s track record.

          • Anonymous says:

            I am saying that the USSR adopted all the policies Marxists like you, Loomis, DrDick etc favored and they were an economic basket case. Why is that?

            • Malaclypse says:

              That’s so cute that you think the USSR had one consistent economic policy during the course of its existence.

              Don’t ever change, you are perfect just like you are.

              • Anonymous says:

                One thing that IS consistent is there were no capitalists in the USSR. And that country’s economy was a wreck. HMMmmmm…wonder if the two are related?

                • Woodrowfan says:

                  pancakes. Pancakes are nice. Who’s up for some pancakes?

                • One thing that IS consistent is there were no capitalists in the USSR.

                  Except when there were.

                  What a maroon.

                • Sharculese says:

                  Good point, maybe (factually deficient) correlation does equal (angry weirdgross) causation after all!

                • Observer says:


                  They will never address this issue. When “Suzie” gets cornered and has nothing, it’s “that’s so cute”, etc.

                  And you are correct. There were no capitalists and central planning was the norm. And as we all know, it didn’t work out well at all….in any iteration, not just the U.S.S.R.

                  But the allure of something for nothing of socialism, the burning desire for ‘fairness’ and the lack of historical knowledge of how socialism and communism allowed such horrible human rights abuses will cause socialism and communism to once again be in vogue.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  That’s so cute when you pretend to be different people in order to agree with yourself, Jennie. Sure fooled everybody.

                • Observer says:

                  Suck on it ‘suzie’

                • Malaclypse says:


                  Part of your dumbprint, Jennie. Please troll better.

              • DrDick says:

                Or that the policies it did adopt were consistent with all forms of socialism. They certainly not what Marx had in mind. What rightards like Jenny never understand is that Soviet Russia is much better understood as a Leninist, not Marxist, enterprise (with a heavily czarist political infrastructure). From what we can ascertain, Marx favored a syndicalist and not state socialist model.

                • Observer says:

                  They certainly not what Marx had in mind.

                  Please point out one successful Marxist country.

                  I’m seriously interested to understand what success is in your eyes.

                  Because I can pretty safely say that free markets have created more wealth than any other system, hands down.

                • Murc says:

                  Because I can pretty safely say that free markets have created more wealth than any other system

                  This may be true, but I kind of say ‘so what?’

                  I care less about the total amount of wealth created than I do that it’s distributed equitably.

                • MAJeff says:

                  Please point out one successful Marxist country.

                  Define “successful.”
                  Define “Marxist.”
                  Define “Country.”

                  You may see there are some problems in the very question you ask.

                • Observer says:

                  I care less about the total amount of wealth created than I do that it’s distributed equitably.

                  Perhaps you could talk to Scott about giving all students the same mediocre grade in his classes regardless of ability or effort.

                • spencer says:

                  “Equitably” and “equally” are two different words with different meanings, Jenbob.

                  Jesus, could you possibly be any dumber?

                • Observer says:

                  Do we just turn to your guiding opinion as to what’s ‘equitable’?

                  Who decides?

                  I’m interested in knowing who you think should have the power to tell others who’s worth what.

                  Let’s have it. Lay it out, if you really have anything other than your flapping gums…

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Lay it out, if you really have anything other than your flapping gums…

                  Hello pot, meet kettle. Kettle, please stop fucking the walruses.

                • Observer says:

                  Thought so…

            • John Protevi says:

              Marxists like you, Loomis, DrDick

              Some of them are Marxist college professors, who are paid with your money that men with guns who come to your door take! And who then buy not only pancakes, but pain au chocolat, brioche, gâteaux, and quelle horreur, crêpes Suzette! And they order them with a French accent, and spell them with those funny accent marks! Just to aggravate you and to celebrate The Blessed One’s victory! And they indoctrinate the students with Marxism. There’s even a pool to see who can make the most conservative students cry sad little conservative tears. Bwwahhaahhhaaaa!

              • Bruce Baugh says:

                Waiter, see that whatever it is Mr. Protevi is having, he can keep having it.

              • Anonymous says:

                There’s no doubt this country is going straight into a socialist hellhole. The America I and my ancestors new is dead–we are turning into Canada, only even more socialist in the end I expect. Canada with nukes and less ice hockey is the future of the late great USA.

                • Woodrowfan says:


                • MattT says:

                  Shit, we brought union busting to Canada, and now they don’t have ice hockey either.

                • Gary Rupert says:

                  The America I and my ancestors new is dead–we are turning into Canada, only even more socialist in the end I expect.

                  The fact is, hear in the Heartland, we new it was dead when Nancy Pelosi got her girl-cooties all over are govermnent.

                  Canada with nukes and less ice hockey is the future of the late great USA.

                  Also, in the Heartland, we know there’s only room for so many parody trolls.

                • John Protevi says:

                  we are turning into Canada

                  You know what language they speak in Canada, don’t you JenBob? French! But up there the Marxist college professors don’t eat pancakes, it’s poutine instead!

                • Pseudonym says:

                  O Canada, that great frozen-over socialist hellhole.

                • GeoX says:

                  Is this the same person who, just in the last thread, was bwa-ha-ha-ing about how CAPITALISM IS ETERNALLY ASCENDENT SUCK IT LIBS? Why yes, I believe it is. This is some funny shit.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  But up there the Marxist college professors don’t eat pancakes, it’s poutine instead!

                  To be fair, that is a pretty hefty consequence.

                • Hogan says:

                  And you know what they have lots of in Canada? Maple syrup. Which goes well with . . . come on, you know the answer . . .

                • John Protevi says:


                  To be fair, that is a pretty hefty consequence.

                  True dat. Or c’est vrai, to keep with the theme.

                • Barry says:

                  I like pie.

                • Chad says:

                  As a Canadian-American now retired to the Philippines, I am confused, What’s my future environment?

              • DrDick says:

                Making libertarians cry actually is one goal of my economic anthropology lectures.

            • DrDick says:

              They became an economic basket case and ultimately collapsed for the same reason we will if the GOP gets its way. They diverted far too much of their GDP to military purposes and not enough to civilian and consumer goods.

          • Walt says:

            Watching you try to make sense of that is like watching a sooth-sayer reading sheep entrails. There’s just nothing there, man.

          • Doug says:

            Spare a kind thought for the pigs, eh Mal?

        • Major Kong says:

          Silly me. I forgot. There’s absolutely no middle ground between Soviet-style Communism and late 19th Century laissez faire Capitalism.

          • Anonymous says:

            Are you a Marxist or not Major Kong?

            • Major Kong says:

              Comrades! He’s on to us! Quick, back to Moscow!

              • Anonymous says:

                Was the day the USSR finally gave up the ghost the saddest of your life?

                • Major Kong says:

                  I used to sit nuclear alert as a B-52 aircraft commander, with targets inside the Soviet Union.

                  I’d say that gives me sufficient anti-communist “street cred”.

                  They were an easier enemy to deal with, however, than chasing faceless terrorists.

                  There were rules to game and both sides (mostly) followed them. We were too scared of making a mistake and blowing up the world.

                • Walt says:

                  Wait, was that supposed to be trash talk?

                • Pseudonym says:

                  It did ruin the chances of living out his dream of riding the Bomb cowboy-style as it dropped on the commies. And yet, from beyond the grave, they still appear to be fluoridating your precious bodily fluids.

                • DrDick says:

                  It was not even a sad day for me. As an actual Marxist, and not a Marxist-Leninist, I have no love for totalitarian political systems. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same.

                • Why would any liberal be saddened by the fall of the Soviet Union?

                  Soviet communism was just another failed alternative to mixed-economic liberal democracy, like conservatism, fascism, and all the others.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Was the day the USSR finally gave up the ghost the saddest of your life?

                  Djilas wept.

              • Observer says:

                Comrades! He’s on to us! Quick, back to Moscow!

                While this is pretty funny…it’s certainly true that it’s only the far left Democrats that are ever accused of being communists, never the Republicans.

                I guess I can understand why one would want to pre-empt the commie thing before it’s raised as it has been so many times before.

                • spencer says:

                  Nobody gives a shit about being called a communist, mainly because this isn’t 1981 anymore. These days, calling people “communists” for disagreeing with you says more about you than it does about them.

                • DrDick says:

                  As an actual socialist, why the fuck would I worry about being called a commie (even if it is not technically correct)? I often call myself that in public. Now if you accused me of being a libertarian or a Republican, I would take your fucking head off.

                • Observer says:

                  As an actual socialist…

                  Oh, please….just fuck off, will ya’?

                • Pseudonym says:

                  Your evidence for accusing “far left” Democrats of being communists is that they are the ones being accused of being communist? That seems like the kind of argument that might backfire on an accused caprid-copulator like Observer.

            • Pseudonym says:

              Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?

        • DrDick says:

          Do you really not know the difference between a demand (decentralized or capitalist) economy and a command (cntrally planned) economy? You really need to pull yur head out of your ass once in a while and take a look around. There are lots of tasty pancakes out here in the real world.

      • Pseudonym says:

        What do you mean by “the economy” being demand-driven? I’d say short-term economic growth is largely demand-driven in most circumstances, but long-term economic growth comes from technological advancement and investment in human and social capital.

        • DrDick says:

          No, it always comes from consumer demand. Technology has no significant impact on the economy if it does not increase or create more demand. If nobody buys your product, it has no impact, other than making you go bankrupt.

          • Pseudonym says:

            I agree in the sense that the point of the economy is to fill people’s desire for goods and services. In that sense though what you’re saying is true by definition. If nobody buys your product it has no impact, but if you can’t manufacture or supply a desired product it still doesn’t have any impact. But in terms of proximate causes, an economy with a static supply function and production frontier can’t grow indefinitely even with a changing demand function. Or to put it another way, is the reason that the economy has grown since, say, the 1700s that consumers are demanding different things or that producers are able to supply different things? Did the Roman Empire lack tanks and bombers and nuclear weapons because there wasn’t any demand for them?

            • DrDick says:

              No economy can grow indefinitely. We live in a finite world with a finite population and finite resources. Technological change can increase demand, as I said, but it is not automatic and it is still consumer demand that drives the economy. What is produced, how much is produced, how many jobs are created, and ultimately how the economy grows or doesn’t is simply a function of consumer demand.

              Frankly I think this fetishizing of growth is ultimately destructive. This is a major factor driving most of our economic problems. When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, economic stability was the primary goal.

              • Pseudonym says:

                I think we’re just violently agreeing. I’m saying that consumer demand drives technological advancement which produces economic growth, and I think you’re just taking the intermediate step as a given. I don’t know if fetishizing growth has been destructive, as I think a lot of economics has been dedicated to establishing a stable monetary basis for continued growth. I think there’s a lot of potential for technologies like augmented reality and genetic engineering to continue economic growth even in an age of resource limits, at least for the most well-off consumers. But I’m a child of the 80s, so I don’t have anywhere near the same historical perspective.

        • howard says:

          in response to real or anticipated demand, not as ends in and off themselves. (well, ok, government does invest in human capital through the education system as an end in and of itself.)

    • Mike G says:

      “Job creators” is a crock of propaganda cooked up by the Koch operation. As if job creation is a beneficient act of charity by the rich.

      Know what creates jobs? People spending money. Get money into the hands of people who will spend it. Economically strangling the poor and middle class doesn’t do it.

  6. c u n d gulag says:

    A few years ago, someone wanted to open up a machine shop in one of the NY boroughs.

    And they put a help-wanted ad in the NY Times, looking for well trained, experienced machinists. And all the were looking to pay them, was between $10-12 an hour.

    My late Father started off as a machinist, and ended up a foreman in a number of shops there, and Upstate NY.
    I showed him the help-wanted ad, and he laughed.

    He said that might be fine for a someone who was a trainee – but no experience machinist would work for that.

    A few weeks later, I saw an article in the Times, where the owner was complaining that he couldn’t find people who wanted to work, and so was re-thinking opening up the shop.

    Dude – no self-respecting experienced machinist would work for that in NY City. Hell, they couldn’t live off of that if they had a family!

    Pay them, and they will come.

    Also too – whatever happened to companies training people and giving them the knowledge and skills necessary to do the job?

    Now, they want the states to teach in Community Colleges, the skills they used to teach workers during probationary periods.

    The most dependent and entitled people in this country, are our Galtian Overlords.

    • MAJeff says:

      Now, they want the states to teach in Community Colleges, the skills they used to teach workers during probationary periods.

      And the states are failing to fund community colleges.

      • Jeremy says:

        So, basically, the working class is expected to pay for its own training, which will then qualify it for jobs that still pay burger-flipping wages. And, if the working class considers this a shitty deal, and settles for burger-flipping jobs or unemployment instead, that’s because they’re “entitled” and “want stuff.”

        • guthrie says:

          Got it in one.

          I’ve been saying for years the problem isn’t lack of skilled employees, it is lack of skilled mployees willing to work for peanuts.

          And sometimes there genuinely is a lack of skilled employess, but that is either because the software is only a year old so nobody has much experience with it, or because that narrow specialism only has 5 firms doing it and they all hope that someone else has paid for the training of the people who they want to employ, rather than doing it themselves, because that requires actual hard work and management.

          • Green Caboose says:

            Gee, as recently as the 1980s if you wanted to hire people to work on the specific technology you bought you hired good people in that industry and sent them to training for a month. But somehow the world transitioned to “you have to have the specific training already before we hire you.”

            Of course, this doesn’t apply to CEOs, who are often hired without any knowledge of their industry and spend a year “coming up to speed” at outrageous salaries.

        • MAJeff says:

          Yes. The system is set up such that people to pay for the certification that will allow them to make money for other people.

    • Gareth Wilson says:

      Isn’t it possible that the machine shop couldn’t make a profit if it paid more than $12 an hour? Granted, that still means the owner was dumb. But he could be dumb for thinking this was a viable business plan, not dumb for grabbing too much money and paying the workers too little.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        This business plan might work in the Deep South’s “At Will” states, but in NYC, the cost of living is many, many time higher.

        If he had hired, and paid, a group of experience machinists, and had them train people who have the aptitude for that kind of work, then he might have been able to at least start the business.
        But you really can’t get too many skilled and experience people for rock-bottom salaries.
        At least, not yet.

      • howard says:

        broadly speaking, gareth, yes, there is such a thing as paying so much for labor – a primary cost – that you can’t compete on price, and you either compete on quality or you can’t compete: this is the basic principle of creative destruction.

        but when you see businesses with strong demand and healthy bottom lines saying they can’t afford to pay more, you can be sure they are talking about the rank-and-file, not senior management, for whom there is always more money available, and you can be further sure that they are lying.

    • Observer says:

      no self-respecting experienced machinist would work for that in NY City.

      So, if you are correct, they will be forced to pay more or not get their machinists.

      So, what’s the problem? The system works

      • DrDick says:

        Well, that is the problem they are facing. They refuse to pay more and so cannot hire anybody. They (and you) then scream that they cannot find any qualified applicants. You people only like the market when it benefits you or your rentier overlords. When the workers make it work for themselves you all scream “SOCIALISM!” You dumb fuckers need to get your narratives straight.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Pay them with what? Milton Friedman pointed out that well over 80 percent of national income comes from wages. And just 6 percent from profit. Even if you used up every cent of profit it wouldnt nearly be enough.

    Marxism fails and the market wins yet again.

    • Pseudonym says:

      Pay them? Hmph. Let them eat pancakes!

    • Walt says:

      You do know that executive salaries count as wages, right?

      • Anonymous says:

        Why should executives pay themselves less? The whole point of business is to make money for the owners and executives. It’s their money, their business, not some fucking charity outfit.

        • John Protevi says:

          The whole point of business is to make money for the owners and executives.

          Silly JenBob, the whole point of business is for you to bust your ass so men with guns can come to your door and take your money to give to Marxist college professors who use it to buy pancakes.

        • Patrick says:


          Because if you don’t pay your workers the prevailing wage, the following things happen:

          1. You can’t find enough workers.
          2. The workers willing to work for you are the ones who can’t get jobs elsewhere, e.g., the less valuable workers.
          3. As your workers improve from on the job experience, they leave for better paying positions.

          This isn’t rocket science. Your comment is as dumb as claiming that its irrational for your machining shop to pay your supplier for steel because you’re not a “fucking charity outfit,” and you need the money for new golf clubs.

        • Sharculese says:

          You don’t actually know what businesses are, do you?

        • Chad says:

          Hope you remember the way back to your rock.

        • NonyNony says:

          I’ve got to say the juxtaposition of this:

          Pay them with what? … Even if you used up every cent of profit it wouldnt nearly be enough.

          with this:

          Why should executives pay themselves less?

          In the same comment thread – in fact just separated by a single other comment – is an instant classic.

          Well done, my good troll, well done! Go have a pancake with some maple syrup to reward yourself for that bit of nonsense!

    • Major Kong says:

      Ah, so the road to prosperity is for all of us to make less money? Got it.

      You know, in the Air Force we believed in “Lead by example”.

      So I’m sure you’ll take the lead and voluntary work for less money.

      • DrDick says:

        Today’s capitalists and managers (along with JenBob) are dumber than Henry Ford, who knew he had to pay his workers enough to be able to afford to buy his product.

        • chris says:

          Actually, the crisis of capitalism is that Ford was wrong. He paid his workers enough to be able to afford to buy *everyone else’s* products. That would work fine if everyone was willing to reciprocate, but once one Wal-Mart shows up, that system breaks down. It’s a tragedy of the commons problem: if nobody’s workers make decent wages, everyone suffers from lack of customers, but no individual business can afford to pay decent wages while their competitors are not.

          And like other tragedies of the commons, it can only be fixed by an agent acting at a society-wide (or at least industry-wide) level, such as the government (minimum wage laws) or a union covering the whole industry (negotiating the same CBA with all employers in the industry, so they can’t attempt to compete by screwing their employees worse than the competitor screws his).

    • DrDick says:

      And Milton Friedman has been right about exactly what in the last 50 years? He and his acolytes have gotten pretty much every prediction they made 100% wrong. Do try to vist reality someday.

      More to the point, what we can pay the workers with is the money saved by paying CEOs only 40 times (rather than the current 311 times) as much as the line workers. This is what they do in Germany and Japan (who are kicking our butts on many fronts).

    • Jeremy says:

      The figure is more like 2/3, rather than 80%, historically. And after several years of following Friedman’s advice, we’ve gotten that down to 57.6% these days, from what I can tell. So, on behalf of the working class, let’s all thank Milton Friedman and his acolytes for our 15% decline.

    • Nigel says:

      Wait… paying people is Marxism?

  8. Chuchundra says:

    In 1986, one of my first jobs after dropping out of college and after the inevitable trip through fast food purgatory was as a machinist trainee. The company was a third-rate operation that specialized in cheap subcontracting work for the big locals like Grumman and Fairchild. The place was pretty horrible, a veritable cornucopia of OSHA violations and worker abuses.

    On the other hand, they started be out at $5.00 and hour, which loosely translates to $10.00 and hour in 2012 money. This despite the fact that I had no experience in machine shop work and, to be quite honest, average mechanical aptitude at best. On top of that, the guy who brought me in, a friend of my mother’s, got a bonus from the company after I had been there three months.

    My point is that even the cheap fucks who ran that place realized the value of a trainable kid who was willing to learn, put in some effort and show up to work every day. If they had been waiting for a fully-trained machinist to show up and take that same five bucks an hour, they would have been waiting a long time.

    Six months in, I couldn’t take it anymore and quit to go sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door. But that’s another story.

  9. shah8 says:

    Please stop feeding the stupid troll.

    • Woodrowfan says:

      I tried, but some trolls are too much fun to poke with a stick..

      • DrDick says:

        This one certainly ties itself into some interesting and complicated knots.

        • NonyNony says:

          Honestly, our pet troll here at LGM is just not very good at the trolling thing. He/she/it needs to do a bit more research on actual things that would piss off liberals. Instead, he/she/it seems to have built up a caricature of a socialist/communist/liberal and says things that would piss off that caricature instead of things that would piss off actual liberals/socialists/communists.

          Also he/she/it might want to crack open an economics textbook that wasn’t written by Ludwig von Mises. Possibly Marx’s Kapital, if he/she/it wants to find some things that might actually have a shot of pissing off a real liberal.

    • NonyNony says:

      Aw. But our trolls love pancakes!

  10. […] Just Pay Them: Scott Lemieux This entry was posted in Potpourri. Bookmark the permalink. ← Reader Feeder Bits for (Fri. 23-Nov-12 1630) […]

  11. J R in WV says:

    Wow, a conversation with a real communist. Back in 1969 I happened to meet a guy named Gus Hall, seemed like a nice guy. I was a country boy of 18, and it was years later I realized he was the leader of the Communist Party. But also just a guy.

    That is so meaningless now. Communism as practised in the Soviet never was communism, of any description.

    The Republican plan is closer to communism than the Soviet Union was. What do you say, DrDick? Soviets or Republicans?

  12. Emil Batton says:

    Scott, isn’t there a way for your software to allow us to flag and hide threads from the resident under-bridge dweller?

    I love reading LGM, and the comments, but when huge tranches of comments are generated by you-know-who, for no purpose whatsoever, it becomes harder to devote the time to keeping LGM in my reader.

  13. gfhjfjfhfhhf says:

    Pozyskiwanie odsyłaczy jeszcze nigdy nie było banalne. Dzięki unikalnemu spisu adresów internetowych ekspresowo nabędziesz bez liku stałych łączy do Twojej strony. Wystarczy tylko, że wyselekcjonujesz adekwatną kategorię i uzupełnisz odnośnik do Twojej galerii. Pamiętaj, ażeby opis, który dodajesz był niezwykły. Nasz adiustator błyskawicznie zaaprobuje go i będziesz mógł weselić się silnym odnośnikiem do Twojej strony, jaka po pewnym czasie będzie niezwykle wzięta. hiperłącza z naszego wykazu zagwarantują Ci wysoką lokalizację w wynikach wyszukiwania. Pamiętaj, że nasz wykaz stronek internetowych będzie niedługo płatny! Dodaj swoją stronę www już dzisiaj.

  14. The terminology and mechanics can prove to be difficult to understand.

    In order to pass and advance, you must achieve a score of 70 or higher on the test.
    And from what I can see of her behavior seems totally unaware
    she’s done anything wrong.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.