Graduated Minimum Wage?

I don't consider corporations people. It's more complicated than that. The government must be strong enough to keep the corporations honest. It must be this struggle between Godzilla and King Kong, two great powers. Better these two beasts at war than the alternative of just one beast with unchecked power.

 

There is no good save for mercy for the weak.

 

Nor, in the same manner of thinking, are governments people. Corporations have no power of their own to impose upon you, leaving you free to choose if you wish to work for them or avail yourself of their products or services. The real struggle is between those who want to be free to make their own choices, good or bad, and those who would prefer the government make choices for us, which often even when seemingly good, have cumulative bad consequences.

 

Some people should never leave their parents home. While having mercy for the weak is not a bad thing, it should not become a function of government, but instead a function of those who make up each and every small society. Humans in total comprise a species, NOT a society.

Wages are paid based upon the value of the work to be done, NOT upon the needs of those who do the work. Artificially set the wages too high and the work may not get done. Set the wages too low and few would take the job, and those who did would likely perform poorly to the level of the wages being paid. Both wages and prices adjust to acceptable levels with the least disruptions when left to being determined in a competitive free market.

 

In this case Godzilla and King Kong are not at war, they are in bed together. You are very naive if you think big government is the way to keep big business in check.

 

Indie why do you keep posting the same stuff you couldn’t defend the first time?

To repeat -

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

The difference with that situation is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they don’t go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help them’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

And as pointed out many times humans form themselves into societies,

To repeat –

Actually you seem more of an enemy to ‘the people’ and their ‘power’. And that is where your ‘many societies’ argument seems to come into context. I mean I’ve asked you to explain it before and you have seemed rather vague but it seems to me that part of it at least is about splitting ‘society’ into wealth based ‘societies’, there is a society of the very wealthy, a society of the wealthy, of the not so wealthy and the rest.

And the individuals in these ‘societies’ have no obligations to anyone else.
But as pointed out to you many times those with power are much more able to exercise ‘freedom’ than those without power.

The medieval nobleman had greater freedom than a peasant, the slave owner had greater power than the slave, etc. And without government checks on such power (or it removal) then that is what happens power takes control.

It seems to me is what is behind many of those calls for ‘limited government’ and the reason why ‘FREEDOM’ is repeated by them so often is that it’s a misdirection - because actually they want to take away ‘the peoples’ freedom while vastly increasing the power of wealth.

To repeat –

But in an exploitative system that doesn’t work out very well for the employee, when it is a system of work or starve historically employees have gone for squeezing as much as they can out of people for as little ‘reward’ as possible.

And has been shown on numerous occasions you seem to want to bring in such an exploitative system – saying that you’d like a system where those that through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship should suffer even unto dead from want.

I mean you have already said you support a “Spenceristic” system named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer who said –

It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence…the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. . .

As to a free market there never has been and never could be a ‘free market’.

 

I am so sick of hearing about how oppressed the rich and the powerful are. I am no champion of their cause, that is obvious, and I will continue to educate myself and strengthen my ability to fight on the behalf of the disadvantaged and the working class, who are generally manipulated and brainwashed by the elite.

As far as I'm concerned, the only worthwhile beauty to be found in human life is in our interconnectedness and in us working together to supplement each other's weaknesses with our unique strengths.

Individuality will always be there, and will never be endangered by the cause of charity towards the poor and underprivileged. The strong will always be strong, and their cause is nothing I would choose to fight for.

The weak need all the help they can get.

I cannot agree with Ayn Rand or Nietzsche on this. The strong must sacrifice some of their strength in order to aid the weak. Sacrifice is beautiful, and it is not a disease or weakness.

We can't have Sparta revisited. Imagine this line of thought taken to an extreme, where the weak and vulnerable infants are euthanized as they will not contribute well to society.

I'm sorry but "efficieny" and "progress" are not the goal here in my mind.

And I think there is more wisdom and good sense in the new testament bible than any philosophical or economical conclusions arrived at during the middle ages or since, and this is coming from a leftist.

The ones fighting for the poor, for the mentally ill, for the weak and ugly ones who get stepped on, those are the ones worth looking up to because they are fighting for balance and for beauty.

I could care less about fancy architecture, economic development, the arms race,or other symptoms of the disease known as progress.

The only march of progress I'm interested in involves men like Christ, Buddha, Confucious, Lao Tsu, W.E. B. Dubois, Martin Luther King, Ghandi...those who all taught that we're equally valuable in a truly objective sense that only God knows, that we're only as strong as our weakest members, and our successes are never greater than our worse failures.

It's a depressing way to view the world, or it could be seen as such, but there isn't a lot going on now that really impresses me.

I know how it is to hate the world as Christ did, to truly see the ugliness in the "let the strong crush the ethos" embraced by those who champion social darwinism under any name.

Better a bleeding heart, a commie, or an idiot, than a social Darwinist.

And I know I'm bad all the time and as proud as the devil too, but I try to at least fight for what I see as beautiful as well as I can.

I won't just give up and do what's convenient and say "let the chips fall what they may and let the bastards run rampant over us all".

 

Win win or no one wins at all.

 

If there are losers in your midst, you're already engaged in a witch hunt.

 

Red,

Who is claiming that the rich and powerful? are being oppressed? The only claims Im seeing and/or hearing from the Left is that by being rich they are exploiting their wealth in ways to oppress the poor, by stealing from the poor to acquire and/or maintain their wealth.

I fully support acts of charity as a means of assisting those who are poor or in need due to circumstances, but see that as a function of society exercised by the free choice of the members, and NOT a function of the Federal government. For any government involvement in the form of charity to be acceptable it should be done at the Local level, and in rare circumstances the State level of government. Should Federal assistance be found necessary, it should be at the request of the State and provided as a loan to be repaid in full by the State within a determined time period, and perhaps even with some interest. The State can apply progressive means of taxing their citizenry as needed to repay their loans, but as a society we, meaning each of us individually, as well as governments, local, State and Federal need to begin living within our means and paying our bills, and stop just living on borrowed money creating more debt for the future members of the societies that exist today.

 

The left side has cried and threw baby fits over the right sides wealth since the dawn of time. If the left was smart enough, They too, Can be in a better setting making more money. But, They choose to sit on their ass as usual and cry, Whine and blame 'rich people' for their short comings.

Like always, Its boils down to, The left are too stupid and poor and want the 'rich' to pay for them. Plain and simple fact. They can rally and join to bitch about "handouts", But cant do the same for an education or a job or better job?

 

As I've said numerous time in different threads I'm not a cheerleader for the left (nor the right), and I can totally dig a conversation on many of the lefts short-comings and hypocrisies, however, this post is really annoying. Simply for the fact that you are throwing around the word "fact" about things like the left is "too stupid and poor and want the rich to pay for them"--- so, you are saying it is a fact that the left is stupid. What study did you receive that factual information from?

 

Not to mention that any wealth disparity that exists is not between the Left and the Right, but between those who have much wealth and those who have little wealth, regardless of their political views. As for those who have little wealth, probably agreat number lean Left politically having bought into the belief that the Left will make their lives better at the least cost to them each individually. Show me a consumer who shops looking to pay the highest price, or turns down something wanted or needed when offered for free.

 

I'll pay a higher price over a lower price for the following reasons:

1. I know the business people well and want to give them the business

2. The quality of service is better than the other option. (Or warranties, or other perk is offered that isn't price per say but does matter)

3. I'm in a desperate situation (doesn't happen too often.

4. I'm on a date or business event where worldliness and image matter.

 

I have no complaint to allowing one to exercise free choice, in how they wish to spend their own money.

Necessity is something we all just have to contend with at times.

I tend to lose respect and distrust those who present themselves falsely. I prefer to accept people as they are, and honesty in how they present themselves to me goes a long way in the giving of my respect and trust.

 

Look back through history, You will find that it is the most common part of the R vs. D and that the D has always had their hand out.

Unions were created because one common stupid man could not speak well and read, But had his hand out for more. Thus, Formed a 'union' with a speaker so they could ALL hold their hands out and bitch and cry, I want more...
What study? I went and got an education and learned it through reading, History and economics. Reason I used fact is because that's what it is, FACT.

 

I share that view, but I was just listing reasons that answer the previous post about WHY someone would pay a higher price over a lower price.

Those are all reasons individuals do so.

Personally, 1-3, are what apply to me.


---

I'm not always pro-union, I support labor movements on a case by case issue by issue basis.

But your premise that unions are formed purely because they WANT to cry, bitch, and moan and be greedy, ignores history that you so claim has your back.

Labor was also about making workplaces safer, IN ADDITION to higher pay.


Just look at how the railroad was accomplished in the United States, the big guys up top took the cream of the crop of government AID, leveraged states and local communities with railroad stations being near or far away on the basis of local tax immunity, and heavily relied on Chinese labor, at no concern for the risk of hazards.

No hazard pay, no benefits, nothing. Someone dies? Oh they're labourers we'll replace them.


^That is why unions were formed, they are the response to corrupt private business practices.

That was the beginning of one of the most guilded-age, of American history that was completely hands-off with regulations.

I didn't see individuals taking big private sector giants to court SUCCESSFULLY, they were lucky if they even had a case to bring with evidence.

 

"Show me a consumer who shops looking to pay the highest price, or turns down something wanted or needed when offered for free."

You answered with why you might be willing to pay the higher/highest price, and for viable reasons which do not conform to 'looking to pay the highest price', with the exception of your 4th reason, "I'm on a date or business event where worldliness and image matter."

 

The thread is about a higher minimum wage.

But what about the occupations not covered; How about the Straight Commission sales job?

Would like to see more occupations included for a minimum wage requirements.

 

But is having something being cheap always good for the long term interests of an individual or society?

Having a cheaper shirts at the expense of another’s exploitation may be good for the buyer of the shirt but it isn’t for the one being exploited. Also if such cheap products undermine domestic manufacturing as well that may not be in the society’s best long term interests.

Having cheap fuel might be good in the short term interests of consumers but not for the long term interests of the environment or economy.

Cheap subprime mortgagees may seem worthwhile in the short term but can have terrible long-term consequences.


To me there should be balances between consumer and community, between short term and long term, between what the market wants and what is best for society.