55 minutes ago, Utebird said:

The government isn't paying them not to work, they are supplementing their income because they don't either have jobs to get or don't have jobs that pay more than what they can get on government assistance.

Instead of lazy shaming people I to working for poverty wages wouldn't it make more sense to ask employers to raise wages???

The biggest trick ever played is that the ruling class those making 100 million dollars convinced the working class those making 25$ an hour that the poor those making the minimum wage are the source of their problems.

Expecting and shaming people Into working for poverty wages doesn't benefit you or any member of the working class,instead it benefits the ruling class, the sooner you realize that the better for you and all the working class, that is unless you are the 1% which if that's the case I doubt you'd be on here posting while on your mega yacht.

No it makes no sense bc you will cost more people jobs than you lift out of poverty even if you naively assume that it wont just increase costs and keep them poor

people are not entitled to an easy high standard of living

56 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Read my post  above

 Instead of blaming " lazy" workers why not put the blame where it belongs, greedy employers.

Because the workers at that level are indeed lazy and entitled

13 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Sorry, but that is a bit of nonsense.   Many of the minimum wage jobs are with small businesses.  Most small businesses don’t survive.  

There is a value for a job for any employer.  At the corporation where I worked, we had a woman who was excellent at her job but she had done it for 30 years and had early on maxed out at what we would pay for that job.  She was basically on COLA increases.  She told me she didn’t feel appreciated. I told her she was and pointed out she got the max bonus every year (she had grown to think the bonus, which was profit sharing, was a given). I told her that she had long ago reached the value we had on her job and explained the bonus again.  When she retired a few years later, we automated 90% of her job and outsourced the rest for a pittance.  Were we greedy?  No.  Actually, looking back, it was irresponsible of us to the shareholders to keep her on as long as we did.  We could have automated her position years before.

The pandemic showed how order apps and websites and kiosk like tools can work.  Zoom and Skype showed us how to do things remote.  So why have the drive through order taker.  Kiosk it or have a smaller remote team taking orders across your group of fast food restaurants, for example.  That isn’t greed, it is efficiency.  Most times, efficiency means lower prices.  Yes, senior managers at large corporations are over compensated and yes, corporations focus on ROI for the shareholders but few pay minimum wage.   None of the corporations I own stock in pay minimum wage.  

The largest employer in the US is WalMart, they also have the most employees on welfare, while they pay a bit over minimum it's still no where near enough to bring somebody above the poverty level.

You are correct though most jobs don't pay just minimum wage 

As for the rest ill bite my tongue and just say I don't share those views and would rather not discuss why as I'd like to maintain the tepid relationships I have on this board for the function of continued eagles related discussion.👍

7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

No it makes no sense bc you will cost more people jobs than you lift out of poverty even if you naively assume that it wont just increase costs and keep them poor

people are not entitled to an easy high standard of living

Why not?

There's enough wealth to end poverty, who says a CEO like Jeff bezos who alone is worth more than the bottom half of the us population works any harder than some dude at Walmart, or a teacher or a social worker???

Study after study shows that when wages increase prices dont increase dramatically and that the economy does better because working people spend money instead of hoarding it or spending it on their own stock buy backs 

Trickle down economics has over 30 years of data showing nothing but enriching those at the top and decreasing the middle class and increasing the lower class.

There is enough wealth and resources in this world for everyone to live comfortably so why are people homeless why is their poverty why are 1-5 kids in the US the richest country in the history of the world food insecure?

Because they're lazy?? No because of greed, 

The top 10% of the world population control 80% of the worlds resources, is that because they work harder and the rest of us are lazy?

No it's because they're greedy and as I said before the biggest trick ever played is those making a billion a year convincing those making 25$ an hour that those making 7.50 an hour are the source of their problem's.

Me advocating for higher wages doesn't take money away from me or any other working class or poor people it takes it away from those at the top and puts more of it in the hands of the working class.

19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Because the workers at that level are indeed lazy and entitled

Link?

11 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Why not?

There's enough wealth to end poverty, who says a CEO like Jeff bezos who alone is worth more than the bottom half of the us population works any harder than some dude at Walmart, or a teacher or a social worker???

Study after study shows that when wages increase prices dont increase dramatically and that the economy does better because working people spend money instead of hoarding it or spending it on their own stock buy backs 

Trickle down economics has over 30 years of data showing nothing but enriching those at the top and decreasing the middle class and increasing the lower class.

There is enough wealth and resources in this world for everyone to live comfortably so why are people homeless why is their poverty why are 1-5 kids in the US the richest country in the history of the world food insecure?

Because they're lazy?? No because of greed, 

The top 10% of the world population control 80% of the worlds resources, is that because they work harder and the rest of us are lazy?

No it's because they're greedy and as I said before the biggest trick ever played is those making a billion a year convincing those making 25$ an hour that those making 7.50 an hour are the source of their problem's.

Me advocating for higher wages doesn't take money away from me or any other working class or poor people it takes it away from those at the top and puts more of it in the hands of the working class.

Link?

Bezos started and developed a company that redefined the way people shop and acquire products.  The government can't stop people in the private sector from starting businesses and profiting off them.

There are a lot of people working their tail off in the highest income tax bracket who are orders of magnitude removed, in both net worth and lifestyle, from some of the people labeled as the Bezos/Zuckerberg "the rich" who are "hoarding everyone else's money," yet are taxed at the same rates.

So do we put a cap on wealth?  If so, where?  It's easy to point a finger at Bezos and Zuckerberg, but where do we draw the line?  Most people would place the cap somewhere just beyond whatever they expect to achieve in their lifetime.  Literally, the people who are rich beyond their dreams.  That's who needs to pay more.  But not them.

 

 

So how about that football stuff

 

Just going to leave this here as a casual reminder that future GOAT candidate DeVonta Smith is an Eagle.

I can't wait for the first Merrill Reese ...Hurts to Smith TD call...

"The Eagles have a 3rd and 9 from their own 40 yard line ....Hurts drops back....he evades pressure...he sees a man open....FIRES....COMPLETE to DeVonta Smith at the 20 yard line!...Smith evades a tackle....Smith at the 15...10....5  ...TOUCHDOWN DEVONTA SMITH!!!"

 

Boom!

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Utebird said:

Why not?

There's enough wealth to end poverty, who says a CEO like Jeff bezos who alone is worth more than the bottom half of the us population works any harder than some dude at Walmart, or a teacher or a social worker???

Study after study shows that when wages increase prices dont increase dramatically and that the economy does better because working people spend money instead of hoarding it or spending it on their own stock buy backs 

Trickle down economics has over 30 years of data showing nothing but enriching those at the top and decreasing the middle class and increasing the lower class.

There is enough wealth and resources in this world for everyone to live comfortably so why are people homeless why is their poverty why are 1-5 kids in the US the richest country in the history of the world food insecure?

Because they're lazy?? No because of greed, 

The top 10% of the world population control 80% of the worlds resources, is that because they work harder and the rest of us are lazy?

No it's because they're greedy and as I said before the biggest trick ever played is those making a billion a year convincing those making 25$ an hour that those making 7.50 an hour are the source of their problem's.

Me advocating for higher wages doesn't take money away from me or any other working class or poor people it takes it away from those at the top and puts more of it in the hands of the working class.

Link?

1. If a higher minimum wage increases some prices, so be it.  It likely will and that's ok.  At least most folks will have a "living wage" and let them decide how to spend it.

2. Trickle down economics is basically a farce, imo.  It "sort of" works to an extent but in most cases it basically just increases the wealth of the upper classes.  The middle class is what drives the economy in the US and in most industrialized nations.

3. There likely is enough wealth in the world to end poverty (for the most part).  The issue has more to do with creating wealth and jobs in the poorest countries of the world so that the poorest of the poor will still have "enough" to get by, imo.  It's not as "easy" as some "socialists" like to presume.   As far as the 1 in 5 stat....if there are still children in the US that go to bed without a meal, that has much more to do with their parenting than the US in general, imo.  There is ZERO reason any child should be hungry in the US in 2021.

4. The top 10% of the world likely "earned" that position. (One way or another).  That won't be a "popular" opinion but I'm not stating facts to be "liked".  Yes, the "winners get the spoils".  That's the way the Earth has been run for the better part of 10,000 years.  It has much more to do with how the "winners" "manage" the world they live in, imo.

5. Don't hate the "billionaires".  Hate the ones that refuse to help those less fortunate than themselves.

My 2 cents. 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, BigEFly said:

You really think 7 on 7s in spring practice have a lot of impact in September?  The biggest value at the OTAs is the classroom time and the strength and conditioning time.  The drills allow the coaches to see the players in movement.  I suspect each player walks away with a better understanding of the plays and what they need to work on and the coaches walk away with a better understanding of the clay they have to shape.  Further, since the players and management negotiated this deal, the reputation as a players organization sticks. 

IIRC, spring practice was like one or two weeks and half the team wasn’t there because of track and field and baseball.  Basically a knock the rust off, work on this before we meet again in the summer.

I don't think they will miss the playoffs because of no true OTA's with 7 on 7 and 11 on 11 but I do think with brand new schemes, a new starting QB, new backup QB that every little bit on the field is only going to help.

 

11 hours ago, Vortex said:

So how does a vaccine that merely lessens symptoms serve to protect fellow employees?

That’s how every vaccine works you idiot. The vaccine provides immunity so that your body’s immune system response prevents the disease from making you sick. What did you think they were little magic shields?  

12 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

That’s how every vaccine works you idiot. The vaccine provides immunity so that your body’s immune system response prevents the disease from making you sick. What did you think they were little magic shields?  

Can you read?

8 hours ago, Utebird said:

Show me any vaccine that had ten year data before bei g rolled out to the general public.

The measles vaccination took about two years to develop, the first doses weren't refined and led to rashes and high fevers, they refined it within a year and then rolled it out world wide and it had a 93% efficacy, within that first year.

So far with covid vaccine which was developed under a year it has shown a 94% efficacy.

The one issue was from the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that had a chemical that in a very miniscule amount of people was causing blood clots, usually clots are treated with hepherin yet the chemical Interaction with the chemical in the vaccine was causing adverse effects so the doctors stopped treating with hepherin and problem solved and no one has died since from blood clots dur to j&j vaccine.

If I remember correctly j&j also changed their vaccine to exclude what was causing that chemical reaction. 

Other than that covid vaccine has shown to be relatively safe without any adverse effects.

As for long term adverse effects as you stated not enough data to draw any conclusions and the short term positive effects so far outweigh the unknown potential adverse effects.

I get the reluctance to take the vaccine though, I trust the government about as far as I can throw them and one can go find cases of government medical abuses or failures littered through out our countries history yet I'm going to play the odds.

And I believe the immediate known positive affects from the vaccine outweigh the potential unknown adverse long term affects 

If in ten years I have autism because I got my covid shot and you're still alive and kicking I'll relate to my occupational therapist through a series of non verbal signs that I was wrong and you were right 😁

Deal???

Also MRNA has been in use since the 90s. The research for the vaccine  built on the research done for SARS vaccine which was fairly far along before funding stopped development. So it’s not like some miracle there was a lot of existing research on a similar virus and a lot of science and data on the use of MRNA in treatment. 


 

Just now, Vortex said:

Can you read?

Apparently you can’t if you think the COVID vaccine works differently than any other vaccine. 

13 minutes ago, Vortex said:

Can you read?

Let me further explain. When you are not vaccinated the virus makes billions of copies of itself and those copies shed to make others sick.  When you’re vaccinated your body has the chance to stop the billions of copies sooner and the chance of spreading the disease goes down.  

1 hour ago, DireWolf said:

What's a Troll? 

This ? 

Or Tolkien's version? If so I'd like to order five, and one who can run an 8 yard comeback. 

Sorry- it’s my first time on the internet. 

This is really lame morning poop reading material 

6 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

 

Just going to leave this here as a casual reminder that future GOAT candidate DeVonta Smith is an Eagle.

I wonder how much stock FO put into some of these metrics?

To me when evaluating football players these metrics are more useful than some of the tests administered at the combine.

23 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

This is really lame morning poop reading material 

Agreed 

12 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I wonder how much stock FO put into some of these metrics?

To me when evaluating football players these metrics are more useful than some of the tests administered at the combine.

I mean to some degree the combine tests replicate these metrics but where’s the need to do that when you can see it on tape.  I think the other real change will be the GPS data from games and practices.  I mean what purpose does a 40 time have when they will have hundreds of examples of a player’s speed. 

Recent studies have shown the vaccine does reduce the spread of the virus because it dramaticlaly reduces the viral load and thus the rate at which virus is shed. Like most viruses, infection depends on the amount of exposure, the body can handle a small dose but above the threshold level the immune system is overwhelmed.

The long-term effects of infection by COVID are a couple orders of magnitude greater than any potential long-term effect of the vaccine, studies are showing that a substantial proportion of those infected who are not sick enough to be hospitalized suffer damage due to inflammation and clotting from COVID. It'll take decades to find out the full extent, but for example, people who had West Nile Fever have been found to have 3x the mortality from kidney disease, and COVID is far more damaging, hitting multiple organs.

Given the overwhelming evidence, easily found from reputable sources (or go read the medical literature), anyone who doesn't get vaccinated is an idiot. The risk/reward calculus is so heavily weighted toward the vaccine that you have to be a conspiracy theorist to find any justification for not getting vaccinated.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-long-haulers-long-term-effects-of-covid19

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90966

https://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/post-covid-complications.pdf

10 hours ago, Vortex said:

Please don’t bring real world facts into this. 

I work in the medical field as well, with Seniors, though I am not a doctor.  In December before vaccines we had 20 Residents with Covid, 2 died.  Since vaccination in February: zero cases, zero new cases, zero deaths.   Meanwhile, the community has been fully open for a month to visitors and vendors with no mask requirements.   Here in Florida so many have been vaccinated.   How is that for real world facts?

11 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I work in the medical field as well, with Seniors, though I am not a doctor.  In December before vaccines we had 20 Residents with Covid, 2 died.  Since vaccination in February: zero cases, zero new cases, zero deaths.   Meanwhile, the community has been fully open for a month to visitors and vendors with no mask requirements.   Here in Florida so many have been vaccinated.   How is that for real world facts?

Not the facts he wanted to hear. 

11 hours ago, BigEFly said:

I do think that the increased unemployment amounts allowed people to hold out for higher wages and it did highlight how difficult it is to live on a stagnant minimum wage.   Would seem that like social security, minimum wage should have a COLA.   I also think it is important to realize that jobs have a certain value to an employer and at a certain point, they start looking at alternatives, like robots and automation.  

I used to hate dealing with claimants under the Long Shore and Harbor Workers Act.  Unlike normal workers comp, which typically pays 2/3rds of the average workers wage subject to a cap, LSHWA has no cap.  So the person got 2/3rds of a pretty decent wage and some lost the incentive to return to work.  Has to be a happy medium. Same with unemployment.  

It's actually economically efficient to some extent to not force people to desperately seek work and take the first job they find.

The reason is that searching for a new job is difficult when you have a job, so giving people the resources to extend a job search for a couple months may end up with the worker finding a better job, and thus both benefiting the worker and the economy (worker is more productive). However, like most things, it's a fine balance, too much incentive to search and you're subsidizing video game players, too little and people get trapped in dead end jobs.

Minimum wage is the same issue, too low and employers engage in a "race to the bottom," too high and it raises labor costs too high for low skilled jobs. One solution is to raise the minimum wage moderately, but also provide income support for low wage workers to lift them out of poverty, but it has to be designed to avoid hard cutoffs that disincentivize taking higher paying jobs by reducing total income.

Trickle down doesn't work because within a wide range, tax rates don't have much impact on economic decisions. A better move would be to eliminate deductions for interest, which would dampen speculative investment and force investors to put skin into the game, they're already subsidized by the bankruptcy system (i.e. limits downside risk to the amount invested). This would allow the Fed to be more aggressive with monetary policy without fueling speculative bubbles.

We need more and better government, infrastructure, education and basic research contribute more to productivity than slashing capital gains tax, for example. But again, incentives matter, I'm against forgiving college loans due to moral hazard, requiring college kids to have skin in the game motivates them to work harder and steers them away from low income degrees unless they're truly committed to those fields. However, I am in favor of capping repayments to a percentage of income and forgiveness after twenty years, a mistake at 20 shouldn't burden someone for a lifetime. Again, balancing different incentives, we want to encourage education without subsidizing pot smoking sociology majors who want to party for six years.

 

 

7 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I can't wait for the first Merrill Reese ...Hurts to Smith TD call...

"The Eagles have a 3rd and 9 from their own 40 yard line ....Hurts drops back....he evades pressure...he sees a man open....FIRES....COMPLETE to DeVonta Smith at the 20 yard line!...Smith evades a tackle....Smith at the 15...10....5  ...TOUCHDOWN DEVONTA SMITH!!!"

 

Boom!

 

 

 

The problem with this call is that Merrill's eyes are so bad that he never knows who the receiver is right away. So there is no way that he would say the pass was compete "to DeVonta Smith". Instead, he would probably say something like "complete at the twenty yard line...running with the football is DEVONTA SMITH...he's at the 15...etcetera.)

To be honest, his calls on some of the key plays in the Super Bowl were pretty bad. The Philly Special (called it as Ertz throwing the pass)...the Ertz fourth down catch (called it as Ertz being short of the first down)...the Graham strip sack (didnt even realize that Brady had fumbled).

2 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

The problem with this call is that Merrill's eyes are so bad that he never knows who the receiver is right away. So there is no way that he would say the pass was compete "to DeVonta Smith". Instead, he would probably say something like "complete at the twenty yard line...running with the football is DEVONTA SMITH...he's at the 15...etcetera.)

To be honest, his calls on some of the key plays in the Super Bowl were pretty bad. The Philly Special (called it as Ertz throwing the pass)...the Ertz fourth down catch (called it as Ertz being short of the first down)...the Graham strip sack (didnt even realize that Brady had fumbled).

Sad but true. I don’t listen to Merrill full time anymore, but I try to catch his highlight calls, and he just isn’t the same.