Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

  1. #26
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    Workers shouldn't be paid what it costs for them to live. They should be paid what they are worth to the employer. Some jobs simply don't produce enough to be worth a "living wage" or whatever.
    1) Then the next words out of employers mouths are how they cannot find anyone willing to work for that wage. Please send us some illegal aliens to employ. Thank you very much. Now Americans - shove off in your own country and economy.

    Being in the computer field, I have become deeply aware of this argument where the employer wants to set one wage and the skilled want to set another. So then the employer unbalances the market by importing new labor. That is some bullshit.

    2) Costs for them to live... good way to shutdown an economic system if it doesn't cover living expenses. In fact, it is a good way to create anarchy.

    Individual employers might not be responsible for a workers ability to live, but the system should be. If not, then the system is not working for people, and if it isn't working for people - then there is no reason to be a part of that system. If one is not part of the system, then it is a free-for-all and that has it's own problems.

    If your productivity is only worth 5 bucks an hour to the firm, why should they pay you 10 bucks an hour? That would be ridiculous and that company would quickly be out of business. THe price system in labor is extremely important. It gives a very clear signal: these jobs are NOT that valuable to consumers, so do something else if you want to make more money(and better serve others).
    1) To make it worth the employee's time.

    2) If the value of the labor is so diminitive, then perhaps it should be scratched out of the company. Obviously it is not economically important to the company.

    In other words, if it is that important to them, they will pay the price for it. I have certainly needed something and came away grumbling as a consumer - well - employers are consumers of skill and labor and sometimes there is a minimum price for something to make it worth while.

    The last thing the poor need is to have jobs outlawed due to the above. Instead of minimum wages, those concerned should promote abolishing the Fed, a real step that would help the poor tremendously as they pay the most by taxation via inflation. Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are obstensible supposed to help: the marginal workers.
    I'll ask that of a below minimum wage worker and see if they think it hurts or helps. I'll bet I know what the answer is.

    As far as the Fed, put down Jekyll Island and read up on Hamilton and why it really went into place.

    Minimum wage is also a way to subsidize mechanization and automation. If I have a choice between buying a machine that can perform a job, or hire 2-3 peolpe to perform a job, I will weigh what it will cost versus what my profit will be. If the government comes in and says that now i am FORCED to pay those workers more than my projection, I will simply skip them and just get the machine(it has become relatively cheaper compared to the human workers).
    Partial agreement. I wouldn't say it subsidizes machines.

    The purpose of a minimum is VERY clear: all it does is outlaw wage contracts below a certain level, period. That's it. It is a purely prohibitive law.
    Some would say it is a protective law.

  2. #27
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearless Fairy
    I notice a pattern here. Those here who oppose min. wage also oppose gay marriage and also express anti Muslim sentiments.

    Ask yourselves what is the common bond ?

    Min. wage jobs are typical held by immigrants or ethnic minorities
    Homosexuals are also considered to be minorites
    Muslims are also considered minorites in the US

    The common thread is discrimination of people considered minorites in the US

    Depends on the definition of anti-muslim sentiments. Some in particular believe any criticism of muslim countries is anti-muslim.

    Well, I support a minimum wage, but I don't support Saudi Arabia's ways.

  3. #28
    Member Fearless Fairy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol
    Depends on the definition of anti-muslim sentiments. Some in particular believe any criticism of muslim countries is anti-muslim.

    Well, I support a minimum wage, but I don't support Saudi Arabia's ways.
    Agreed. I wasn't very clear I suppose, sorry. I was refering to the all Muslims are the same or evil comments that have been written by several different site members.

    Just noting a common thread in all these subjects and those who oppose or have negative views about them. The common thread, which as I mentioned, is that the subject matter all have to do with those who would be considered minorities in the US.

    The across the board opposition certian posters have to not only min. wage but also gay rights and people of Muslim faith do tend to make one wonder if it is really the subjects or minority people that are being opposed by those certian site members.

    For the record though, I also support min. wage laws.
    Last edited by Fearless Fairy; 05-06-2005 at 08:05 PM.

  4. #29
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    notice a pattern here. Those here who oppose min. wage also oppose gay marriage and also express anti Muslim sentiments.

    Ask yourselves what is the common bond ?
    Actually there IS a common bond on one level. Those who advocate a higher mimimum wage, gay marriage, and $5 per gallon gasoline tend to fall into two groups ... people with trust funds/million dollar incomes and people with low/no incomes, versus the 'middle class'. In both cases the real world costs and consequences of these positions will not adversely affect the standard of living of the rich or the poor. On the other hand, 'middle class' people who oppose a high minimum wage, mandatory 'free' spousal benefits for gay spouses, and $5 per gallon gasoline tend to be those who will wind up bearing the brunt of the real world costs and financial consequences, to the detriment of their own (and their children's) standard of living, and possibly threatening the future existance of the 'middle class' itself.

    One can arguably add to the trust fund/million dollar income plus low/no income group other persons who are not actually bearing 100% financial responsibility for their own lives. This would include people whose parents are still contributing significantly to their financial needs, and people who escape the real world costs and financial consequences by not reporting and not paying taxes on their actual incomes.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-07-2005 at 03:51 AM.

  5. #30
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Oh Melonie, I know this request is futile but here it is anyway:

    Do you have any PROOF of your statement regarding the high/low income people being the only/primary supporters (along with the "trustafarians" who are avoiding the real world in the other ways you mention) of those policies?

    I propose (from personal experience and unofficial research as well) that if your statement were true, the support for these policies on this board would not exist...as few of the folks here likely fit in either of those 2 categories.

    Maybe (as I hate stereotypes, hard to say) the only common thread (besides the one that FFsuggested) in those who oppose balanced policies that respect future generations is FEAR. FEAR of those not like them, FEAR of changing the way things are....even to make it better, FEAR that eliminating a serf culture will limit their ability to profit, FEAR of standing up for the ethical principles (most) say they believe in (especially every Sunday in church, for the fundamentalists)....FEAR.

  6. #31
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Actually there IS a common bond on one level. Those who advocate a higher mimimum wage, gay marriage, and $5 per gallon gasoline tend to fall into two groups ... people with trust funds/million dollar incomes and people with low/no incomes, versus the 'middle class'. In both cases the real world costs and consequences of these positions will not adversely affect the standard of living of the rich or the poor. On the other hand, 'middle class' people who oppose a high minimum wage, mandatory 'free' spousal benefits for gay spouses, and $5 per gallon gasoline tend to be those who will wind up bearing the brunt of the real world costs and financial consequences, to the detriment of their own (and their children's) standard of living, and possibly threatening the future existance of the 'middle class' itself.

    One can arguably add to the trust fund/million dollar income plus low/no income group other persons who are not actually bearing 100% financial responsibility for their own lives. This would include people whose parents are still contributing significantly to their financial needs, and people who escape the real world costs and financial consequences by not reporting and not paying taxes on their actual incomes.

    ~
    Well, Mel, wait. The thread started out by saying the minimum wage is "infamous" as a principle. My replies support a reasonable minimum wage as a principle.

    I stick by that. Minimum wage should be a balance. Finding that balance can be tough, but I am in favor of striving for it, and not in favor of a "high" minimum wage that provides a disincentive to looking for ways to advance oneself.

    Nor am I "in favor" of $5/gallon gas. I am in favor of measures that will reduce our dependence on nonrenewable, i.e. finite and declining, energy sources and that help to make the world a healthier place. If we could have all that and 30 cents a gallon, I'd be very happy.

    Nor have I ever relied on a trust fund, inheritance, or anything else. Distinctly blue-collar background, and it's definitely cost me more to tidy up things after my relatives' deaths than any paltry and unwanted inheritance that came out of it. What I've gotten, I've gotten through my own efforts.

    Your posting seems to me a bit polarizing, to make the leap from minimum-wage support as a principle to advocating some "high" minimum wage, and however it may apply to what others are saying, it mischaracterizes the thrust of my statements.

  7. #32
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Do you have any PROOF of your statement regarding the high/low income people being the only/primary supporters (along with the "trustafarians" who are avoiding the real world in the other ways you mention) of those policies?
    Only the Kerry campaign's supporter profile data from the last election.

    I propose (from personal experience and unofficial research as well) that if your statement were true, the support for these policies on this board would not exist...as few of the folks here likely fit in either of those 2 categories
    This is precisely why I included "other persons who are not actually bearing 100% financial responsibility for their own lives. This would include people whose parents are still contributing significantly to their financial needs, and people who escape the real world costs and financial consequences by not reporting and not paying taxes on their actual incomes"

    as to FEAR, fear from opponents of a higher minimum wage, $5 per gallon gasoline, and mandatory 'free' benefits for gay spouses stems from the damage these will do to the American economy and to the 'middle class' way of life which will bear the brunt of the extra costs.


    Your posting seems to me a bit polarizing, to make the leap from minimum-wage support as a principle to advocating some "high" minimum wage, and however it may apply to what others are saying, it mischaracterizes the thrust of my statements.
    I would hope that everyone realizes that, as a result of limited postings by others in opposition to 'liberal' viewpoints, that I'm forced to play 'devil's advocate' to some degree in my postings in order to prompt further discussions (and hopefully a bit more critical thinking as well). In real life, my personal positions are not as 'polarized' as my posts on this BBS might appear. However, if I were to 'go easy' in my BBS posts, many discussions would simply stop with a 'liberal' victory (at least until the next election puts those topics under discussion on the ballot). I'm also very grateful when others jump in and carry on some of the 'opposition' postings, as it gives me a chance to escape the 'homophobic, selfish, money-grubbing, pro ruthless corporations, restart the crusades bitch" typecasting for a little while at least.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-07-2005 at 06:41 AM.

  8. #33
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Only the Kerry campaign's supporter profile data from the last election.
    Oh, so I see the research was limited and biased. Assuming you got the info from a good source and it's complete, you ALSO ASSUME the Kerry campaign represents all those who think as you describe. OK.


    This is precisely why I included "other persons who are not actually bearing 100% financial responsibility for their own lives.
    OUCH...another huge ASSumption...I've never borne less than 100% personal responsibility for my own life, and I bet many posters here on the board (and elsewhere) are in the same boat. (Excepting, of course, some special situations (as you explained your family helped you during a rough time)...which is part of life)

    Truly, no one bears 100% the cost for their own lives, as we all depend on public utilities, roads, community infrastructure, etc....but that's an entirely different line.

    However, if I were to 'go easy' in my BBS posts, many discussions would simply stop with a 'liberal' victory
    and since labels and polarization are so vital to maintaining American isolationist image of superiority, we can't have a discussion of facts without labels.

  9. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Oh, so I see the research was limited and biased. Assuming you got the info from a good source and it's complete, you ALSO ASSUME the Kerry campaign represents all those who think as you describe. OK.

    and since labels and polarization are so vital to maintaining American isolationist image of superiority, we can't have a discussion of facts without labels.
    Again, insisting that any point is totally invalid without 100% documentable proof is a two edged sword. Proof of minimum wage support is not directly available since this issue is always addressed by legislation and not by direct vote. As such, one is forced to rely on indirect proof i.e. the fact that the legislators who propose it are always liberals, followed by the fact that major contributors to/ supporters of liberal legislators fall into the rich and poor categories.

    Proof of legalized gay marriage support is also only available in pieces, i.e. twelve recent state ballot initiatives which voted to reject gay marriage. High profile mainstream media coverage does not equate with 'support' from American voters.

    Proof of $5 per gallon gasoline support is the most indirect of all, primarily initiated by liberal legislators who advocate no expansion of supply (either oil drilling or refining), who advocate expensive boutique gasoline additive formulations, or who advocate laws restricting actual price competition and/or permanently embedding inefficiencies in the supply chain in order to subsidize particular groups who benefit from those continued inefficiencies. Actual proof of groups who support those liberal politicians is also a very indirect proposition, but not altogether impossible to document. In regard to recent Maryland legislation enforcing a de-facto 3% hidden gasoline tax to subsidize 'middlemen', mom & pop gas stations, and union truckdrivers, have a look at Maryland state politics and the groups contributing to those politicians. Other than the governor, things seem a bit lacking in 'balance' ...



    If you scroll down the page to the top contributors section, you see the seemingly ever-present trial lawyer's association, various unions, and democratic national money flowing in from other states. You'll also see that something like 80% of all non-self financed campaign money went to democratic candidates, with a significant portion of that money coming from 'unknown' sources.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-07-2005 at 07:47 AM.

  10. #35
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Again, insisting that any point is totally invalid without 100% documentable proof is a two edged sword.
    never said it was invalid, but simply that it isn't proof of fact either. GWB's base is (from common belief as well as his own statements) "mostly" the ultra rich (he once said at a fundraising dinner "some people call you the capitalist elite...I call you my base, my friends"), but I would never state that ALL supporters of his policies fall into that category.

    By the way, what site did you get the info that most of Kerry's supporters were from the two extremes?

  11. #36
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    Sorry, I'm trying to work today at more than minimum wage. (I pay my part-time student grunts $11/hour.)(And I like to think I'm competitive.)
    I'm curious. You and your grunts value their work as being worth $11/hour. What would you do if the government required you to pay them $18/hour?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  12. #37
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    JZ's got it....damn, well put!


    Sure it can...if it was fact, wouldn't those jobs have already ceased to exist or be o the decline? They're not gone! still gotta have people cleaning, pumping sewers, doing all those jobs that without min. wage, employers wouldn't deem as adding enough value to meet that wage.

    So much for that theory.
    Manyof those jobs have ceased to exist, as evidenced by the growing teenage unemployment rate. Did you even bother to read the article I linked? Department of Labor statistics clearly show that as the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, rises, so does unemployment for teenage (unskilled) workers. If you want to argue for a minimum wage on humanitarian or other grounds fine. But don't do so by denying the clear correlation between an increasing minimum wage and unemployment.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  13. #38
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    and where's the logic in letting the person with the most to gain by lowering labor costs - therefore providing higher margin or more competitive andvantage to his/her pocket* - be the key decidng factor in the amount that labor has value?
    When I go to Wal-Mart, I seek the best combination of quality/price in my purchases. An employer is no different when they make decisions on purchasing labor. That does not make them evil. By your reasoning, Boeing could make a hell of a lot more money by cutting the salaries of their aerospace engineers 20% and pocketing the money. So why doesn't Boeing do that? It's not because they are kind hearted, its because they are making a cold, hard, business calculation. In order to compete, they have to have the best aerospace engineers they can find. The number of people "qualified" to sweep floors is in the millions. The number of people qualified to design technologically advanced airliners is in the thousands. The reason floorsweepers earn so little compared to aerospace engineers is not because corporations are cold-hearted, its simply the law of supply and demand.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  14. #39
    Member Fearless Fairy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Actually there IS a common bond on one level. Those who advocate a higher mimimum wage, gay marriage, and $5 per gallon gasoline
    Please point out where anyone here who has shown their support for min.wage laws and gay marriage who also supports $5 gas prices ? I'm going to have to come right out and just say it. To say that those of us who support min. wage laws and gay marriage want $5 gas is a boldfaced lie. But if you can prove me wrong on that go ahead. Lets see some quotes from a site member that shows their support for all three things.

    I'll be sure to check back at a later time as this one should be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I'm also very grateful when others jump in and carry on some of the 'opposition' postings, as it gives me a chance to escape the 'homophobic, selfish, money-grubbing, pro ruthless corporations, restart the crusades bitch" typecasting for a little while at least.
    Well since you posted it yourself I guess it is safe to comment on that description or typecasting. I think I will just limit my opinion on that subject to this simple and time honored phrase.

    If the shoe fits.
    Last edited by Fearless Fairy; 05-07-2005 at 12:04 PM.

  15. #40
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    It's obvious from the discussion that neither liberals or conservatives are happy with the current situation. As I mentioned in my last post, the way to look at the situation is in light of the laws of supply and demand. The reason unskilled workers make so little is that the supply of them is too high relative to the demand. The laws of economics teach us that if the supply of something is too high relative to the demand, the price will go down. So government tries to counteract the law of supply and demand with a minimum wage. Such an effort is futile, as the facts show. An example, we could save a lot of money on jet fuel if our airplanes didn't have to work so hard to overcome gravity. Perhaps congress should pass a law reducing the effect of gravity on airplanes? Silly huh? Yet congress trying to overcome the laws of supply and demand with a minimum wage law is about like trying to counteract the law of gravity through passing a law. It's never going to work and the results may not be anything like what you hoped for.

    A Free Market Approach
    If we truly want to help unskilled workers, what can we do? Simple, if you want the price for unskilled labor to go up, decrease the supply.

    Here's how:


    1. Education. If we have too many citizens with no skills, our education system has failed us. Change it. Tougher standards, vouchers, elimination of social promotion, whatever. Don't pour more money into a failed system, find one that does work.
    2. Incentives. You have to give people an incentive to move from the level of unskilled worker to skilled worker. Money is a great incentive. The lowest earning workers hardly pay any tax as it is now. But what about those a little higher on the pay scale? Lower taxes for workers. Eliminating the social security tax and letting people invest that money would be a good start. Choose whatever plan you want but give everyone an incentive to move up the pay scale.
    3. Disincentives. We need to discourage certain behavior, like laziness. We pay people not to work. Then we wonder why we have people not working. Abolish unemployment benefits.
    4. Immigration. Other countries are sending their unskilled workers to us. Stop them. We already have too many unskilled workers here. I am definitely not anti-immigration. In fact, I support looser immigration laws for highly skilled workers as a way of keeping our economy competitive. But if we truly want to reduce the supply of unskilled workers, we have to reduce the inflow from other countries.
    But what about those that, "fall through the cracks"? Not everyone will become a skilled worker, what about them? As discretedancer pointed out, Wal-Mart cannot outsource their stores to India, somebody has to clean them. But as the supply of unskilled workers decreases, Wal-Mart will be forced to pay them higher wages. This plan doesn't depend on the generosity of corporations or the party in power in congress. That's why this plan is guaranteed to work. It's not a democrat plan or a republican plan, its a sound economic plan.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #41
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Please point out where anyone here who has shown their support for min.wage laws and gay marriage who also supports $5 gas prices ? I'm going to have to come right out and just say it. To say that those of us who support min. wage laws and gay marriage want $5 gas is a boldfaced lie. But if you can prove me wrong on that go ahead. Lets see some quotes from a site member that shows their support for all three things.

    I'll be sure to check back at a later time as this one should be good.
    This one isn't all that hard. Ask yourself the following questions ...
    - do you support environmentalist lobby groups and liberal senators, who are opposed to drilling for new oil, who are opposed to installing new port facilities to increase the available supply of LNG, who are opposed to any new power plants unless they are fueled by natural gas ? If so, then you are limiting the supply in the face of rising demand which can only result in higher prices for gasoline and other fossil fuels.

    - do you support liberal politicians who advocate increasing the 'minimum wage' and setting 'price floors' for gasoline ? If so then you are inflating the non-fuel related costs of operating gas stations thus forcing gasoline price increases to cover these increased non-fuel cost components.

    - do you support liberal politicians who advocate unconditional opposition to the building of new nuclear power plants ? If so, then you are preventing the increased use of the only 'non-polluting', non-fossil fuel consuming, proven generation technology thus forcing increased use of fossil fuel consuming power generation, thus increasing consumption and creating upward pressure on fossil fuel prices including gasoline.

    - do you support liberal politicians who advocate immediate withdrawl of US troops from the middle east ? If so, then you are creating a significant risk that 30% of US oil supplies can be cut off at the source by islamic terrorists, potentially creating widespread shortages and probable rationing of gasoline in the USA on top of a huge price increase.

    Thus many who think that they are not advocating $5 per gallon gasoline are in fact supporting politicians whose policies would quickly lead to $5 gasoline prices if fully implemented - and policies which are leading us to that point more slowly with the current 'partial' implementation. It's a simple case of connecting the dots.

  17. #42
    Member Fearless Fairy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Hogwash and ridiculous.

    I'll leave it at that and let someone else point out all the holes in that dribble since countering your opinions has already caused me to recieve some unwarrented attention and a PM by another moderator accusing me and my roomate of starting arguments because of not approving of and opposing the high grade prejudice you and two others express on this forum.

    It is quite clear that you get special treatment here so enjoy it . I will no longer participate on this website because of that special treatment. I will inform the other people who I have encouraged to visit here not to bother afterall and why.

    There are too many other cool places on the internet that I can spend my time rather waste time on a site like this that prefers prejudice people over non prejudice ones.

  18. #43
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Wal-Mart cannot outsource their stores to India, somebody has to clean them. But as the supply of unskilled workers decreases, Wal-Mart will be forced to pay them higher wages. This plan doesn't depend on the generosity of corporations or the party in power in congress. That's why this plan is guaranteed to work. It's not a democrat plan or a republican plan, its a sound economic plan.
    There's actually a lot of truth to this. You might remember back during the bubble of the 1990's, businesses that gave out low paying jobs like Wal-Mart, fast food, and convienence stores were having an incredibly hard time with employee turnover, in some cases it was so bad that they had to cut operatiing hours because there was no one available to hire. In order to maintain those workers, they had to give people incentive to stay on, hence increased wages.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  19. #44
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    There's actually a lot of truth to this. You might remember back during the bubble of the 1990's, businesses that gave out low paying jobs like Wal-Mart, fast food, and convienence stores were having an incredibly hard time with employee turnover, in some cases it was so bad that they had to cut operatiing hours because there was no one available to hire. In order to maintain those workers, they had to give people incentive to stay on, hence increased wages.
    more proof that the real 'minimum wage' is the amount of pay required to convince an unemployed person who is living on social benefit programs that they will be better of by working at an unskilled job than if they continue to sit at home.

    I'll leave it at that and let someone else point out all the holes in that dribble since countering your opinions has already caused me to recieve some unwarrented attention and a PM by another moderator accusing me and my roomate of starting arguments because of not approving of and opposing the high grade prejudice you and two others express on this forum.
    There is a big difference between actual prejudice and not agreeing to blindly accept particular arguments and positions simply because they happen to be 'politically correct'. There's also a big difference between arguing against a particular person's position or opinion on certain issues with a counter-argument (no matter how drivel-ish it might appear to some), versus attacking them personally. As to your point that I happen to moderate the Dollar Den, although you probably won't accept this, the fact is that in Political Poo or any other forum I receive and expect exactly the same treatment as any other poster, and have always gotten 'equal' treatment. I could prove the point by mounting a personal counter-attack which would force moderator action also. But I'm not going to go there.

    You're welcome to stay or leave as you choose. But this forum in particular has had many bad past experiences in the personal attack arena such that anybody that exhibits a pattern of mounting personal attacks is undoubtedly going to draw moderator heat.
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-07-2005 at 08:58 PM.

  20. #45
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    more proof that the real 'minimum wage' is the amount of pay required to convince an unemployed person who is living on social benefit programs that they will be better of by working at an unskilled job than if they continue to sit at home.
    Not quite...try:
    the wage where the public /taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee's ability to live or the costs for them to progress beyond merely survival pay (re: education)

    the wage where the person will choose to work rather than go without basic essentials

    the wage where the customer pays a cost that is both complete for all persons/operations REQUIRED to provide the product considering the safety and environmental cleanliness to protect all people/communities/companies in the value chain

    the wage where a business owner makes a reasonable profit,while still serving all above criteria.

    That's true minimum wage...it's BALANCEd though,and no one really thinks about that.

  21. #46
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Not quite...try:
    the wage where the public /taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee's ability to live or the costs for them to progress beyond merely survival pay (re: education)

    the wage where the person will choose to work rather than go without basic essentials

    the wage where the customer pays a cost that is both complete for all persons/operations REQUIRED to provide the product considering the safety and environmental cleanliness to protect all people/communities/companies in the value chain

    the wage where a business owner makes a reasonable profit,while still serving all above criteria.

    That's true minimum wage...it's BALANCEd though,and no one really thinks about that.
    Your confusing economics with politics.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  22. #47
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Your confusing economics with politics.
    Far from it (ignoring of course our POLIICians talk mostly about protecting or growing the ECONOMY...so the 2 are clearly linked):

    Not quite...try:
    the wage where the public /taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee's ability to live or the costs for them to progress beyond merely survival pay (re: education)
    ECONOMIC because it directly impacts the COST and therefore AFFORDABILITY/PROFITABILITY/DEBT of the society/govenment, and the COST to the taxpayer and therefore their ability to AFFORD/PROFIT/SUFFER DEBT because of those costs.

    the wage where the person will choose to work rather than go without basic essentials
    ECONOMIC because (clearly) concerned with the person's ability to afford to live, or just survive/not

    the wage where the customer pays a cost that is both complete for all persons/operations REQUIRED to provide the product
    ECONOMIC..in fact basic capitalism. Cost of a product should be the cost it takes to produce, not some artificial other number requiring the FINANCIAL or other support of government or distressed worker

    considering the safety and environmental cleanliness to protect all people/communities/companies in the value chain
    ECONOMIC because failing to do so will result in health, social or environmental problems (workers comp claims to violence/crime, etc.) which result in COSTS to communities, and therefore taxpayers via governement or other services

    the wage where a business owner makes a reasonable profit,while still serving all above criteria.
    ECONOMIC...well, how isn't it?

  23. #48
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Not quite...try:
    the wage where the public /taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee's ability to live or the costs for them to progress beyond merely survival pay (re: education)
    ECONOMIC because it directly impacts the COST and therefore AFFORDABILITY/PROFITABILITY/DEBT of the society/govenment, and the COST to the taxpayer and therefore their ability to AFFORD/PROFIT/SUFFER DEBT because of those costs.
    Wrong. The public/taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee. That is a political decision. Our society is very generous when it comes to the poor. That is a result of our compassion, not compulsion.

    the wage where the person will choose to work rather than go without basic essentials
    ECONOMIC because (clearly) concerned with the person's ability to afford to live, or just survive/not
    From a purely economic standpoint, given a choice, no one would go without essentials. However, we've made a political decision to provide the essentials to people whether they earn them or not. As an example, a couple of years ago I saw a report on a study an ecnomist did. He took a single mom, with two kids, and added up the government benefits she would be entitled to. He determined that she would have to have a job paying a little more than $9 an hour just to break even. Clearly because of political decisions, most people do not have to make the choice you describe.

    the wage where the customer pays a cost that is both complete for all persons/operations REQUIRED to provide the product
    ECONOMIC..in fact basic capitalism. Cost of a product should be the cost it takes to produce, not some artificial other number requiring the FINANCIAL or other support of government or distressed worker
    Wrong again. The consumer doesn't care what the product costs to produce. The consumer only cares about the cost she has to pay.

    considering the safety and environmental cleanliness to protect all people/communities/companies in the value chain
    ECONOMIC because failing to do so will result in health, social or environmental problems (workers comp claims to violence/crime, etc.) which result in COSTS to communities, and therefore taxpayers via governement or other services
    Again, that's true only in the utopian society you envision. When I buy my son cereal at Wal-Mart I don't care what it cost General Mills to produce it. There is a limit to what I will pay for it. I don't ask the clerk if they are paying their worker's a "living wage" or if the wheat was grown using "sustainable" methods. I don't care. I only make a judgment as to the price and quality of the product.


    the wage where a business owner makes a reasonable profit,while still serving all above criteria.
    ECONOMIC...well, how isn't it?
    Again, I don't care. Whether the business makes a "reasonable" profit, an enormous profit or losses money, I don't give a damn. Obvisiously if the business continues to lose money it will cease to exist. However, I refuse to pay more than I have to just to prop up a business. If they can't make a profit they should close.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  24. #49
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Wrong. The public/taxpayer/government doesn't HAVE to subsidize the employee.
    Do so or suffer the consequences (crime, kids with no homes, etc.) and yes, societies around the world have chosen to do so rather than let the consequences occur. We've tried it the other way...didn't work
    t
    However, we've made a political decision to provide the essentials to people whether they earn them or not.
    Again, to avoid the consequences and savethose costs. I don't claim to know what th balance is (to your $9 per hour example, which may be fair or may not) but this criteria is part of the balance. There will always be some people who are the "town bum" and exist on the handouts of others or what they can steal...fair wages would make MOST people not choos that path.


    The consumer doesn't care what the product costs to produce. The consumer only cares about the cost she has to pay.
    but if society weren't subsidizing the workers and the physical plant and the transportation costs (public roads,etc) the cost would be different whether the consumer LIKED it or not. I never said a consumer wants it that way...

    your likes and dislikes as a consumer are irrelevant to that part of the equation. don't buy it if you don't like the price

    n. When I buy my son cereal at Wal-Mart I don't care what it cost General Mills to produce it. There is a limit to what I will pay for it. I don't ask the clerk if they are paying their worker's a "living wage" or if the wheat was grown using "sustainable" methods. I don't care.
    well, beyond being a perfect example of not applying what most people describe as their basic ethics to everyday life...your point is still irrelevant.

    If we as a global society say these things (safe workplace, etc.) are essential FOR OUR LIVES, then by extensionthey must be required for all workplaces (unless some people don't deserve the same safety we do...)

    If we also determine the dangers of pollution and COSTS to TAXPAYERS for cleaning up of environmental improprieties by companies are not worth saving a couple pennies at the store (all you're doing is cost shifting, nt saving money...oh, you'realso creating government waste and making Haliburton richer) ...

    then these points are FACT...undeterred by your desire to not care.


    Again, I don't care. Whether the business makes a "reasonable" profit, an enormous profit or losses money,
    again, your desire or care is irrelevant.

    You stand as 1 of several points of balance in the equation, yet all you kept repeating is "wrong becaue I dont care"....as a consumer you make 1 choice: buy product at the fair price offered or not. The price in a truly balancd free market is determined by ALL the factors, only 1 of which impacts you as a consumer.

    GOVERNMENT (with you as taxpayer wanting to limit costs and therefore taxes)

    WORKER

    CONSUMER (the only point where you,personally and drectly, get to decide with your wallet, no matter how many times you repeat that opinion)

    CITIZEN (wanting to limit problems resulting from unsafe workplaces and poisoning of your community)
    BUSINESS OWNER (only relevant to you if you're an owner in the company with voting shares)

  25. #50
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: infamous historical anniversary, 44 years ago ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Do so or suffer the consequences (crime, kids with no homes, etc.) and yes, societies around the world have chosen to do so rather than let the consequences occur. We've tried it the other way...didn't work
    So poverty causes crime? Then explain Enron. That's pretty insulting to people of meager incomes don't you think?

    your likes and dislikes as a consumer are irrelevant to that part of the equation. don't buy it if you don't like the price
    And you say you are in business? The consumer's likes and dislikes are paramount to any sucessful business. If the business cannot produce the product at a price the consumer is willing/able to pay, the business will cease to exist.

    That's where your plan to regulate ourselves to prosperity breaks down. It just plain won't work in the real world. You think you can impose any cost you please onto business and that they will simply pass that on to the consumer. No. There is a limit to what people can and will pay for any product or service.

    well, beyond being a perfect example of not applying what most people describe as their basic ethics to everyday life...your point is still irrelevant.
    Do you ever go shopping? Only people like you and members of the Sierra Club give a damn about stuff like that. Buying cerreal poses no ethical delimma for me and I don't see it as a moral statement either. Really, you should skip one of your environmental meetings one day and just hang out at Wal-Mart, talk to a few people. It might open your eyes to what real people think.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. me 8 years ago
    By Pretty_Penny in forum Picture Post
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 01:20 AM
  2. What happened 157 years ago hahaha
    By sxybrat07 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2007, 03:29 PM
  3. 15 years ago...
    By sassysummer in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 11:43 PM
  4. 26 years ago today
    By Mr Hyde in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-08-2006, 11:15 PM
  5. Need some help with a mini New Years/club anniversary feature!
    By Mia M in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2005, 05:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •