Did you know Germany doesn't have a minimum wage?

[Akrazotile]

They recently passed a law that will enact the very first minimum wage in the country's history beginning in 2015, but currently and historically there has never been a minimum wage in Germany, one of the EU's strongest economic countries. Even the one they just recently passed will have exemptions for seasonal workers and other various components of the workforce.


How can that be? Why hasn't Germany just been run amok with poverty and crime? Minimum wage is what keeps the masses from starving to death on the street, right?


How is it that one of the world's economic superpowers manages to stave off upheaval and destitution without the all-important "minimum wage"???



Edit: And they enacted it for political reasons, as there is clearly no historical basis for it given their economic success. It's one of those things just to make the masses 'feel' like the government wants to help them. Ultimately the extra bump in low-end wages will come at the expense of middle management positions and promotion opportunities. But hey, what can you do? Everyone's vote counts the same, despite the fact that their knowledge, effort, initiative and circumstance varies widely. One of the funny things about democracy.

[Akrazotile]

Does this really upset you? lol



You know bro if it weren't for people who actually do get upset about important issues like this, your life would be ****ing solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.


You sure wouldnt be sitting on a computer chatting about basketball on the internet. You'd be fukcing tied up to a stake in your burning village while pillaging hordes of invaders rape your kids.


**** yourself.

[RidonKs]

maybe because policies like the minimum wage don't exist in a vacuum for the express purpose of supporting your retarded agenda?

it could be because germany has a long history of progressive politics following something of the scandanavian model, that social justice and economic progress are interdependent and reinforcing. germany has one of the best educational systems in the world. it's almost all publicly funded and free of charge, starting with kids still in their diapers and staying on the house all the way up to the most prestigious academic institutions they have to offer. private schooling is not allowed; attendance at public school is compulsory starting at 6 y/o.

that's all irrelevant though. my apologies for polluting your thread with facts concerning issues you claim to want to discuss while you simultaneously and systematically ignore them because what you really want to do rant about your pansy ass political opponents like me and everybody else in the world who gives a shit about their fellow man.

[embersyc]

You know that in Germany the maximum allowed work week is 40 hours. (It is illegal for you to work overtime)

You get many paid holidays. (At least double US)

Including 1 month of paid vacation annually.

You get 1 full year for maternity leave.

Males get extended paternity leave.

[Jameerthefear]

Does this really upset you? lol
dude is a loser :oldlol:
still love u moe

[Akrazotile]

maybe because policies like the minimum wage don't exist in a vacuum for the express purpose of supporting your retarded agenda?

it could be because germany has a long history of progressive politics following something of the scandanavian model, that social justice and economic progress are interdependent and reinforcing. germany has one of the best educational systems in the world. it's almost all publicly funded and free of charge, starting with kids still in their diapers and staying on the house all the way up to the most prestigious academic institutions they have to offer. private schooling is not allowed; attendance at public school is compulsory starting at 6 y/o.



How come they have all those things and we don't?

[RidonKs]

How come they have all those things and we don't?
:lol

great question. seems like an excellent starting place for an investigation.

or you could not bother with any of that and just make up an answer. preferably something that would neatly cohere to the predetermined notions you've already expressed on this site with all that condescending bravado you're so good at embodying.

you could go with the easy one like "well thats turning the problem on its head... the reality is that not giving into those softy policies for most of its history is whats made america so economically dominant until like 30 years ago". or maybe something a little more subtle and complex, like "germany used to be the dominant big kid on the block, the ubermensch... but then they chose hitlerover freedom, got their ass wooped by AMERRRRRICA, and now its a country of feeble insecure losers who pat each other on the back at their weekly meetings... they're still doin okay on the global scene but thats just history and they're in serious decline, i mean just look at this new minimum wage thing thats gonna have bad consequences cuz nobody is gonna invent anything anymore and small businesses will go belly up!"

its up to you though

[Akrazotile]

:lol

great question. seems like an excellent starting place for an investigation.

or you could not bother with any of that and just make up an answer. preferably something that would neatly cohere to the predetermined notions you've already expressed on this site with all that condescending bravado you're so good at embodying.

you could go with the easy one like "well thats turning the problem on its head... the reality is that not giving into those softy policies for most of its history is whats made america so economically dominant until like 30 years ago". or maybe something a little more subtle and complex, like "germany used to be the dominant big kid on the block, the ubermensch... but then they chose hitlerover freedom, got their ass wooped by AMERRRRRICA, and now its a country of feeble insecure losers who pat each other on the back at their weekly meetings... they're still doin okay on the global scene but thats just history and they're in serious decline, i mean just look at this new minimum wage thing thats gonna have bad consequences cuz nobody is gonna invent anything anymore and small businesses will go belly up!"

its up to you though



Hypothetically what if you found out the answer was because they have common cultural emphases that simply do not exist in the worlds biggest melting pot? What if you found out Germans fundamentally had more innate kinship because of their homogenity? Or what if it was proven theyre just outright smarter on average than other countires?


Basically Im just curious what you would say if you found out the answer didnt fit a politically correct narrative? What if Germany works better as a socialist country because of factors American socialists would hate to acknowledge? Would you seek to explore the answer further in detail, or simply ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable?


Im not saying I have the definitive answer. Im just asking hypothetically, if you found out the real answer conflicted with feel-good PC talking points, what would you do next?

[RidonKs]

i'd be highly skeptical towards anything that suggested an "innate x-ness" because 99% of the time a claim like that is only made to serve the person making it. in the 1% case that some real and reasonable evidence is offered to support such a claim, a scenario i think is extremely implausible bordering on scientifically impossible, i'd investigate the history and roots of those qualities and characteristics in an attempt to discover their origins. assuming they have generally positive outcomes like you described, i'd ponder ways to emulate the society.... there are all kinds of course. some are too dangerous to consider. others can be implemented using incentives that still allow for freedom and choice but hint at what must clearly be the healthier option. if the problem boils down to homogeneity as you've suggested plenty of times (health care cant work because america is a really big melting pot is i think your line) then decentralization would be an ideal to start with and then you consider tactics, potential pitfalls, etc. if they're smarter because they're the civilized descendants of the ancient greeks.... well there's not much you can do there then.

wait a second why am i answering you seriously?

hell the question is a waste of time. your focus regardless of the issue at play is always to hone in on what differentiates people. my focus is typically what people have in common. and when it comes to formulating policy, the answers imo are pretty obvious. no we aren't going to be able to fix everything and turn the world into a smurfs commune. but giving people opportunities to succeed, rather than forcing them into a fight or flight pull your bootstraps ultimatum, is a standard that i believe is completely self-evident.

[Gr]

Did this guy really just say that Germany is socialist?

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Gr]

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Germany is clearly a capitalist country.

Don't use words that you don't understand the meaning of. Makes you look retarded and what you write seems meaningless.

[Akrazotile]

i'd be highly skeptical towards anything that suggested an "innate x-ness" because 99% of the time a claim like that is only made to serve the person making it. in the 1% case that some real and reasonable evidence is offered to support such a claim, a scenario i think is extremely implausible bordering on scientifically impossible, i'd investigate the history and roots of those qualities and characteristics in an attempt to discover their origins. assuming they have generally positive outcomes like you described, i'd ponder ways to emulate the society.... there are all kinds of course. some are too dangerous to consider. others can be implemented using incentives that still allow for freedom and choice but hint at what must clearly be the healthier option. if the problem boils down to homogeneity as you've suggested plenty of times (health care cant work because america is a really big melting pot is i think your line) then decentralization would be an ideal to start with and then you consider tactics, potential pitfalls, etc. if they're smarter because they're the civilized descendants of the ancient greeks.... well there's not much you can do there then.

wait a second why am i answering you seriously?

hell the question is a waste of time. your focus regardless of the issue at play is always to hone in on what differentiates people. my focus is typically what people have in common. and when it comes to formulating policy, the answers imo are pretty obvious. no we aren't going to be able to fix everything and turn the world into a smurfs commune. but giving people opportunities to succeed, rather than forcing them into a fight or flight pull your bootstraps ultimatum, is a standard that i believe is completely self-evident.



My point is that you are the bullied, guilty white American (or Canadian, or whatever you are, but it applies to many in America).


The people that think I'm 'racist' on this board are airheads. Let me tell ya sumps, bro. I grew up with a number of friends in my circle who were minorities, and I never gave the slightest shit about it, because we shared the same culture. We lived in the same area, had the same interests, talked the same, acted the same, had the same values. That's how you create bonds.



The majority of people who make up the financial backbone of America not only have nothing in common with this guy:

http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/thug-trayvons-4-300x296.jpg


But that guy has NO VALUABLE SKILL in America. And the black community is rife with those guys, FACT. It has nothing to do with an agenda against all people who share his skin color. NOTHING. But YOU don't even have the courage to point out patterns and trends that are important to America's future. Because as soon as someone calls you 'racist' you'll shrivel up, and run away. That's called being a COWARD. That's how you get BULLIED. This is why so many liberals fall into this trap, they are naturally the BULLIED in their regular lives. They are the guys who let themselves be BULLIED. You simply don't have the guts to take a tough stand and speak out publicly in front of black people who might incorrectly label you, even if you are taking the RIGHT stand. You don't have the courage.


Now if someone goes in and tries to forcibly straighten that kid out and put him on a path to success, the ACLU will sue the guy for trampling the kids "civil liberties!" You have entire CITIES full of people that are just straight fukced up and backwards, and there is nothing you will allow to be done. More money into computers for the schools? Yeah right. More stolen computers from the schools. Kids with no home support don't just magically thrive because you dump money into the glorified babysitting institutions that are many schools. But if we pass laws that DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY from parents? Look out! Here comes the ACLU....



We are moving away from a manufacturing economy for a long time, yet YOU don't have teh guts to say "wait a minute, we can't have an endless flood of low-skilled non-english speaking workers just show up unidentified!" Because YOU dont have the guts to take an uncomfortable stand in front of hispanics, who you have no intention of offending personally but need to make an important point. YOU are a doormat. And the doormats like YOU are slowly sealing the economic fate of America with each passing year.


And so my point was that YOU will not accept tough answers. Even if they are true. Your priority is 'soft and cuddly, makes everyone feel good' first, and 'substantively meaningful and practically applicable' a distant second. That attitude is not healthy for the FUTURE of American prosperity. You are basically robbing the future so you can get some pats on teh back from other softies today. You won't stand up for the future because it's tough, it's squeamish, it's awkward, it'd demanding. You're getting your rodney king 'cant we all get along' dap and congratulations today and that's all you care about. What a parasite.

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[iamgine]

I read it as Germany doesn't have a minimum age

Now disappoint :(

[Gr]

You mean like educational institutions, which is the example we were talking about?


Don't butt into conversations if you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the specifics.

So you don't understand the meaning of means of production either. :lol

[Brizzly]

No I did not, thanks for letting me know.

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Gr]

This clown accuses me of not being able to comprehend the specifics but doesn't even understand the meanings of the words with which he intends to convey his ideas to others. HAHA!

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Gr]

Please. We all understand what 'socialist policies' means colloquially. Government regulation and/or control of social institutions.

It's clear in the context of my post what I was talking about, and you are nitpicking seemingly for no other reason than to say 'hey everyone! look at me!'


Do you have anything interesting to contribute to the actual topic of discussion?

With "we" I will just assume you mean "brain dead people like me". Fine. Have it your way.

[Gr]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]col

[YouGotServed]

My point is that you are the bullied, guilty white American (or Canadian, or whatever you are, but it applies to many in America).


The people that think I'm 'racist' on this board are airheads. Let me tell ya sumps, bro. I grew up with a number of friends in my circle who were minorities, and I never gave the slightest shit about it, because we shared the same culture. We lived in the same area, had the same interests, talked the same, acted the same, had the same values. That's how you create bonds.



The majority of people who make up the financial backbone of America not only have nothing in common with this guy:

http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/thug-trayvons-4-300x296.jpg


But that guy has NO VALUABLE SKILL in America. And the black community is rife with those guys, FACT. It has nothing to do with an agenda against all people who share his skin color. NOTHING. But YOU don't even have the courage to point out patterns and trends that are important to America's future. Because as soon as someone calls you 'racist' you'll shrivel up, and run away. That's called being a COWARD. That's how you get BULLIED. This is why so many liberals fall into this trap, they are naturally the BULLIED in their regular lives. They are the guys who let themselves be BULLIED. You simply don't have the guts to take a tough stand and speak out publicly in front of black people who might incorrectly label you, even if you are taking the RIGHT stand. You don't have the courage.


Now if someone goes in and tries to forcibly straighten that kid out and put him on a path to success, the ACLU will sue the guy for trampling the kids "civil liberties!" You have entire CITIES full of people that are just straight fukced up and backwards, and there is nothing you will allow to be done. More money into computers for the schools? Yeah right. More stolen computers from the schools. Kids with no home support don't just magically thrive because you dump money into the glorified babysitting institutions that are many schools. But if we pass laws that DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY from parents? Look out! Here comes the ACLU....



We are moving away from a manufacturing economy for a long time, yet YOU don't have teh guts to say "wait a minute, we can't have an endless flood of low-skilled non-english speaking workers just show up unidentified!" Because YOU dont have the guts to take an uncomfortable stand in front of hispanics, who you have no intention of offending personally but need to make an important point. YOU are a doormat. And the doormats like YOU are slowly sealing the economic fate of America with each passing year.


And so my point was that YOU will not accept tough answers. Even if they are true. Your priority is 'soft and cuddly, makes everyone feel good' first, and 'substantively meaningful and practically applicable' a distant second. That attitude is not healthy for the FUTURE of American prosperity. You are basically robbing the future so you can get some pats on teh back from other softies today. You won't stand up for the future because it's tough, it's squeamish, it's awkward, it'd demanding. You're getting your rodney king 'cant we all get along' dap and congratulations today and that's all you care about. What a parasite.

http://i.minus.com/ibovNT1owp74ik.gif

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Akrazotile]

http://i.minus.com/ibovNT1owp74ik.gif


Of course you didn't.


The German guy read a post in a foreign language and nitpicked a word definition.

The American guy didnt read it at all and posted a dancing internet .gif



Pretty much the point of my post, so even though you were too stupid to read it, I do appreciate you helping to validate it.

[YouGotServed]

Of course you didn't.


The German guy read a post in a foreign language and nitpicked a word definition.

The American guy didnt read it at all and posted a dancing internet .gif



Pretty much the point of my post, so even though you were too stupid to read it, I do appreciate you helping to validate it.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/omara86/whatwhat.gif

[Gr]

"What if Germany works better as a socialist country because of factors American socialists would hate to acknowledge?"

:oldlol:

[iamgine]

They recently passed a law that will enact the very first minimum wage in the country's history beginning in 2015, but currently and historically there has never been a minimum wage in Germany, one of the EU's strongest economic countries. Even the one they just recently passed will have exemptions for seasonal workers and other various components of the workforce.


How can that be? Why hasn't Germany just been run amok with poverty and crime? Minimum wage is what keeps the masses from starving to death on the street, right?


How is it that one of the world's economic superpowers manages to stave off upheaval and destitution without the all-important "minimum wage"???



Edit: And they enacted it for political reasons, as there is clearly no historical basis for it given their economic success. It's one of those things just to make the masses 'feel' like the government wants to help them. Ultimately the extra bump in low-end wages will come at the expense of middle management positions and promotion opportunities. But hey, what can you do? Everyone's vote counts the same, despite the fact that their knowledge, effort, initiative and circumstance varies widely. One of the funny things about democracy.
Doesn't it depend on a lot of things?

Just because one country can succeed without a minimum wage, doesn't mean another country will too.

You can't say "oh look they have no minimum wage and they're fine. That's proof that minimum wage is unimportant."

[Akrazotile]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/omara86/whatwhat.gif



http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf99twlsrz1qbr5ymo1_400.gif

[RidonKs]

bla bla bla

i've never called you racist. racism is for simpletons. you're at least smarter than that.

my interest is in the future of our species. i care about that because it's basically all there really is to care about. i don't really give two shits about "american prosperity", certainly not in the sense you mean. i'd like my kids and their grandkids to have a decent future. in a less direct way, i want your kids and their grandkids to do well. everything human beings have ever achieved, they've achieved together. our ability to cooperate with each other, to use our language and our ideas and our emotional connections to innovate and improve our conditions is our greatest virtue. i understand the constraints in which i act and the limited impact my actions can have. so all i do is my best to take advantage of them.

i'm not like you. i'm not comfortable with shrugging off the human experiment and going on my cynical way. i could be. i could say fk it, make as much money and fk as many women and exploit as many people as possible.

i'm interested in soutions. all you ever do is talk about problems, then you talk about people who talk about problems. you're inherently negative. i'm inherently sceptical. big difference.

the only answer to anything i've ever heard you raise is "tell them they suck". yeah, that'll fix it. if only the entire world stood up and shouted at all the american trailer trash and gang bangers and drug addicts "YOU ARENT DOING IT RIGHT" and then cut off all our aid until they were like "OH WE GET IT WE ARENT DOING IT RIGHT" and then they would magically rehabilitate and become productive members of society. yeah, great idea starface. it's people like me who are scared of hard truths that are the real reason addicts can't stop huffing glue. and if i bring up a crucial fact like the enormous consensus in the medical community that addiction is a health concern that requires treatment not punishment... your response is what? stop kowtowing to these weaklings, you're just enabling their bad behaviour? you don't see how utterly irrational that response is?

you can continue to formulate your half-baked cultural diagnoses to
your hearts content. they're never going to be verifiable and they're never going to be remotely useful. in the mean time, i'm going to continue to work on solving issues i care about.



all of that said, i still pay attention to what you say. i think you're a clever funny rhetorical guy with whom i happen to have a fundamental difference in general outlook. that doesn't mean i can't learn anything from you. when i say our greatest attribute is our ability to cooperate, this is exactly what i'm talking about. i'm sure it sounds silly and cheap and extremely corny to a cynic like yourself, but i'm of the firm belief that everybody has something to offer. even the guy in that picture. he was a child once. he has a family. he probably has a few nerdy passions he's afraid to share with his friends because of the macho dynamic he grew up in. but again, i have way more in common with him than i am different from him.

maybe it's all very naive. could well be, i'm not saying i'm god and this is definitely the way it is or anything. certainly there's no evidence to suggest anything i've said here... just like there couldn't possibly be any evidence that could prove the existence of some german geist. like you and everybody else i'm just using my intuition as best i can. but approaching these issues from an inherently optimistic point of view is in my opinion the only way things will possibly improve. and if they don't and i was deluded the whole time, well i'd rather have tried and failed than just given up anyway.

[Jameerthefear]

My point is that you are the bullied, guilty white American (or Canadian, or whatever you are, but it applies to many in America).


The people that think I'm 'racist' on this board are airheads. Let me tell ya sumps, bro. I grew up with a number of friends in my circle who were minorities, and I never gave the slightest shit about it, because we shared the same culture. We lived in the same area, had the same interests, talked the same, acted the same, had the same values. That's how you create bonds.



The majority of people who make up the financial backbone of America not only have nothing in common with this guy:

http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/thug-trayvons-4-300x296.jpg


But that guy has NO VALUABLE SKILL in America. And the black community is rife with those guys, FACT. It has nothing to do with an agenda against all people who share his skin color. NOTHING. But YOU don't even have the courage to point out patterns and trends that are important to America's future. Because as soon as someone calls you 'racist' you'll shrivel up, and run away. That's called being a COWARD. That's how you get BULLIED. This is why so many liberals fall into this trap, they are naturally the BULLIED in their regular lives. They are the guys who let themselves be BULLIED. You simply don't have the guts to take a tough stand and speak out publicly in front of black people who might incorrectly label you, even if you are taking the RIGHT stand. You don't have the courage.


Now if someone goes in and tries to forcibly straighten that kid out and put him on a path to success, the ACLU will sue the guy for trampling the kids "civil liberties!" You have entire CITIES full of people that are just straight fukced up and backwards, and there is nothing you will allow to be done. More money into computers for the schools? Yeah right. More stolen computers from the schools. Kids with no home support don't just magically thrive because you dump money into the glorified babysitting institutions that are many schools. But if we pass laws that DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY from parents? Look out! Here comes the ACLU....



We are moving away from a manufacturing economy for a long time, yet YOU don't have teh guts to say "wait a minute, we can't have an endless flood of low-skilled non-english speaking workers just show up unidentified!" Because YOU dont have the guts to take an uncomfortable stand in front of hispanics, who you have no intention of offending personally but need to make an important point. YOU are a doormat. And the doormats like YOU are slowly sealing the economic fate of America with each passing year.


And so my point was that YOU will not accept tough answers. Even if they are true. Your priority is 'soft and cuddly, makes everyone feel good' first, and 'substantively meaningful and practically applicable' a distant second. That attitude is not healthy for the FUTURE of American prosperity. You are basically robbing the future so you can get some pats on teh back from other softies today. You won't stand up for the future because it's tough, it's squeamish, it's awkward, it'd demanding. You're getting your rodney king 'cant we all get along' dap and congratulations today and that's all you care about. What a parasite.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/645/218/f28.gif

[DeuceWallaces]

bla bla bla

i've never called you racist. racism is for simpletons. you're at least smarter than that.

my interest is in the future of our species. i care about that because it's basically all there really is to care about. i don't really give two shits about "american prosperity", certainly not in the sense you mean. i'd like my kids and their grandkids to have a decent future. in a less direct way, i want your kids and their grandkids to do well. everything human beings have ever achieved, they've achieved together. our ability to cooperate with each other, to use our language and our ideas and our emotional connections to innovate and improve our conditions is our greatest virtue. i understand the constraints in which i act and the limited impact my actions can have. so all i do is my best to take advantage of them.

i'm not like you. i'm not comfortable with shrugging off the human experiment and going on my cynical way. i could be. i could say fk it, make as much money and fk as many women and exploit as many people as possible.

i'm interested in soutions. all you ever do is talk about problems, then you talk about people who talk about problems. you're inherently negative. i'm inherently sceptical. big difference.

the only answer to anything i've ever heard you raise is "tell them they suck". yeah, that'll fix it. if only the entire world stood up and shouted at all the american trailer trash and gang bangers and drug addicts "YOU ARENT DOING IT RIGHT" and then cut off all our aid until they were like "OH I GET IT WE ARENT DOING IT RIGHT" and then they would magically rehabilitate and become productive members of society. yeah, great idea starface. it's people like me who are scared of hard truths that are the real reason addicts can't stop huffing glue. and if i bring up a crucial fact like the enormous consensus in the medical community that addiction is a health concern that requires treatment not punishment... your response is what? stop kowtowing to these weaklings, you're just enabling their bad behaviour? you don't see how utterly irrational that response is?

you can continue to formulate your half-baked cultural diagnoses to
your hearts content. they're never going to be verifiable and they're never going to be remotely useful. in the mean time, i'm going to continue to work on solving issues i care about.



all of that said, i still pay attention to what you say. i think you're a clever funny rhetorical guy with whom i happen to have a fundamental difference in general outlook. that doesn't mean i can't learn anything from you. when i say our greatest attribute is our ability to cooperate, this is exactly what i'm talking about. i'm sure it sounds silly and cheap and extremely corny to a cynic like yourself, but i'm of the firm belief that everybody has something to offer. even the guy in that picture. he was a child once. he has a family. he probably has a few nerdy passions he's afraid to share with his friends because of the macho dynamic he grew up in. but again, i have way more in common with him than i am different from him.

maybe it's all very naive. could well be, i'm not saying i'm god and this is definitely the way it is or anything. certainly there's no evidence to suggest anything i've said here... just like there couldn't possibly be any evidence that could prove the existence of some german geist. but approaching these issues from an inherently optimistic point of view is in my opinion the only way things will possibly improve. and if they don't and i was deluded the whole time, well i'd rather have tried and failed than just given up anyway.

Oh goodness; where verbosity and punctuation do not intersect.

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Akrazotile]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/645/218/f28.gif



Your gifs don't upset me. Your ignorance does. Not your pretend internet ignorance. Your real, actual, palpable ignorance and baseness, BEHIND the computer screen.

:confusedshrug:

[RidonKs]

Oh goodness; where verbosity and punctuation do not intersect.
yeah below my usual standards and even those you've ridiculed, but take a look at what i'm responding to.... i felt an eye for an eye approach was best

[DeuceWallaces]

Yeah well you're probably right and he's an idiot, but that's too much for me. I'm a champion of concise punctuated thoughts.

[Gr]

:facepalm


Again, I was typing quickly and assumed that any intelligent person would understand I was dichotomizing the influence of socialist policies in Germany viz a viz America. Not proclaiming the country was an outright socialist nation.

You've wasted a tremendous amount of both our time. Thanks dude. :cheers:

Too bad for you that public education in and of itself has nothing to do with socialism.

You should also be embarrassed that you claimed public education is a part of the means of production without even knowing what that term means.

Clearly a wannabe intellectual who will jump to conclusions about what he reads without even knowing what he just read.

You literally just talk out of your ass.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah well you're probably right and he's an idiot, but that's too much for me. I'm a champion of concise punctuated thoughts.


Substance optional, of course.


And way to omit a comma whilst "championing punctuation."

[RidonKs]

we've noticed

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[Akrazotile]

Dongs you live in a fairy world bro and its completely self constructed because YOU CANT TAKE DA HEAT of dis real world shit, son. :pimp:





http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4LXzA6PezQ/TpnXosoh0CI/AAAAAAAAACM/v1_-8N10W_U/s320/DEAL-WITH-IT.jpg

[TonyMontana]

Germans are intelligent, and skilled. From a very early age they are given a clear path of how their career should go based on their abilities. Their people don't need minimum wage. It is only coming now because of this forced flood of third worlders to European countries.

Minimum wage exists for lesser humans that have little to no skills and a double digit IQ. Aside from teenagers you will very rarely see an intelligent person working minimum wage.

[RidonKs]

Too bad for you that public education in and of itself has nothing to do with socialism.
wtf?

socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. a public education system is, as much as it can be in a modern representative democracy anyway, democratically owned by the taxpaying public. production doesn't just mean industry. in the sense of socialism, it refers to all of the institutions that govern our lives.

public education is a clear cut example of socialism.

[RidonKs]

Dongs you live in a fairy world bro and its completely self constructed because YOU CANT TAKE DA HEAT of dis real world shit, son. :pimp:





http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4LXzA6PezQ/TpnXosoh0CI/AAAAAAAAACM/v1_-8N10W_U/s320/DEAL-WITH-IT.jpg
right back at you

enjoy your lonely cynical misanthropic adventures. i'm sure they will be memorable in their own way.

[Akrazotile]

wtf?

socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. a public education system is, as much as it can be in a modern representative democracy anyway, democratically owned by the taxpaying public. production doesn't just mean industry. in the sense of socialism, it refers to all of the institutions that govern our lives.

public education is a clear cut example of socialism.



but if it aint no product from a manufacturin plant then it aint no socialism bruh! :cletus:

[Akrazotile]

right back at you

enjoy your lonely cynical misanthropic adventures. i'm sure they will be memorable in their own way.


I am a champion of practical policy just like deuce phalluses is a champion of meticulous accurate thorough precise use of punctuation in his sentences!



edit: also no hard feelings personally. im sayin what i gotta say but outside of that i have no ill will towards you, or anyone here. except maybe real men wear green. i legitimately hate him on a personal level.

[RidonKs]

I am a champion of practical policy just like deuce phalluses is a champion of meticulous accurate thorough precise use of punctuation in his sentences!
you type the word liberal 785 times a day

im not particularly fond of rmwg either lol

[Akrazotile]

you type the word liberal 785 times a day




Awkward response-to-quoted-post ratio here...

[RidonKs]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/35083630.jpg

[Gr]

wtf?

socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. a public education system is, as much as it can be in a modern representative democracy anyway, democratically owned by the taxpaying public. production doesn't just mean industry. in the sense of socialism, it refers to all of the institutions that govern our lives.

public education is a clear cut example of socialism.

:roll:

Incredible. You two geniuses deserve each other.

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Gr

[hookul]

As a german, let me bring this thread a bit back to the original point of the thread:

a) True, till yesterday, Germany did not have a national minimum wage

b) What is not being mentioned at all though is that Germany traditionally has very strong and organized unions that cover most of the job market activities. These unions - in close and sometimes tough negotiations with the employers - routinely set a minimum wage and minimum wage adjustments for the kind of jobs that the specific unions covered. So in a way, while not being a national minimum wage, this system einforced for the majority of jobs in Germany a minimum wage that also got routinely adjusted for inflation (normally every 2-5 years)

c) What happened over the last couple of years though is that more and more low-cost labor emerged like haircutters, working on the fields, working as a burger flipper, working as a runner for Amazon etc. that pay so little hourly wages that these employees actually sometimes have their salary subsidized by the government to get to a liveable wage

d) the yearlong debate in Germany has now been whether this situation is good or bad for the german economy as a whole. It is clear that those jobs are low-skilled jobs and the fundamental question where the right and left wing political parties differed (as always) is whether it is better for those people to have a job in the first place but not make enough money to live from it or whether this is exploitation and it is better that either those jobs do not exist in the first place or that the products from these jobs (e.g. a haircut or the sipping costs for an amazon package) become more expensive and society will just have to accept and absorp these higher costs

e) it is also true that the discussion is largely a political one in Germany as over the past couple of years the income discrepancy in Germany is widening and people are afraid of it reaching American levels. Nobody in Germany wants that and there is a strong general feeling of injustice and equity disparity in Germany. The question is now as always how to address this problem.

f) setting the minimum wage is one attempt to solve it. We will see how it turns out (will it increase unemployment, will people complaim about increased pricces...but most importantly: which solutions will the industry find to circumvent these rules?)

[step_back]

You know that in Germany the maximum allowed work week is 40 hours. (It is illegal for you to work overtime)

You get many paid holidays. (At least double US)

Including 1 month of paid vacation annually.

You get 1 full year for maternity leave.

Males get extended paternity leave.

Germany works those 40 hours though. They're one of the most productive countries on the planet and probably at the very top in terms of work ethic in the EU.

[Nick Young]

I wish America followed the noble Germans. Minimum wage, and all these people doing menial jobs begging for tips is hurting the economy.

[Cactus-Sack]

[QUOTE=Gr

[kNIOKAS]

Germans are intelligent, and skilled. From a very early age they are given a clear path of how their career should go based on their abilities. Their people don't need minimum wage. It is only coming now because of this forced flood of third worlders to European countries.

Minimum wage exists for lesser humans that have little to no skills and a double digit IQ. Aside from teenagers you will very rarely see an intelligent person working minimum wage.
This is not true.


Also, OP is inbound for a neg now.

[Akrazotile]

As a german, let me bring this thread a bit back to the original point of the thread:

a) True, till yesterday, Germany did not have a national minimum wage

b) What is not being mentioned at all though is that Germany traditionally has very strong and organized unions that cover most of the job market activities. These unions - in close and sometimes tough negotiations with the employers - routinely set a minimum wage and minimum wage adjustments for the kind of jobs that the specific unions covered. So in a way, while not being a national minimum wage, this system einforced for the majority of jobs in Germany a minimum wage that also got routinely adjusted for inflation (normally every 2-5 years)

c) What happened over the last couple of years though is that more and more low-cost labor emerged like haircutters, working on the fields, working as a burger flipper, working as a runner for Amazon etc. that pay so little hourly wages that these employees actually sometimes have their salary subsidized by the government to get to a liveable wage

d) the yearlong debate in Germany has now been whether this situation is good or bad for the german economy as a whole. It is clear that those jobs are low-skilled jobs and the fundamental question where the right and left wing political parties differed (as always) is whether it is better for those people to have a job in the first place but not make enough money to live from it or whether this is exploitation and it is better that either those jobs do not exist in the first place or that the products from these jobs (e.g. a haircut or the sipping costs for an amazon package) become more expensive and society will just have to accept and absorp these higher costs

e) it is also true that the discussion is largely a political one in Germany as over the past couple of years the income discrepancy in Germany is widening and people are afraid of it reaching American levels. Nobody in Germany wants that and there is a strong general feeling of injustice and equity disparity in Germany. The question is now as always how to address this problem.

f) setting the minimum wage is one attempt to solve it. We will see how it turns out (will it increase unemployment, will people complaim about increased pricces...but most importantly: which solutions will the industry find to circumvent these rules?)



Good post, I appreciate the insight.

[RidonKs]

bump i just heard something interesting about germany and this was a good thread let's continue to conversation since every so often talking about america gets boring

[NumberSix]

maybe because policies like the minimum wage don't exist in a vacuum for the express purpose of supporting your retarded agenda?

it could be because germany has a long history of progressive politics following something of the scandanavian model, that social justice and economic progress are interdependent and reinforcing. germany has one of the best educational systems in the world. it's almost all publicly funded and free of charge, starting with kids still in their diapers and staying on the house all the way up to the most prestigious academic institutions they have to offer. private schooling is not allowed; attendance at public school is compulsory starting at 6 y/o.
"Social justice" is a soviet/communist idea, not Scandinavian.

[RidonKs]

"Social justice" is a soviet/communist idea, not Scandinavian.
proof of this assertion?

[NumberSix]

proof of this assertion?
Well, the current communist party in Russia is called "The Communist Party of Social Justice" which leaves little room for ambiguity. :lol

As is typical with Marxists, they purposely adopt ambiguous and sometime deceptive sounding language. "Social justice" doesn't sound like anything specific, but it gives the impression of something along the lines of "justice for all of society". When Marxists/communists use this phrase, they're really talking about classes and the characteristics they see as factors of what denotes class.

"Economic justice" and "social justice" were key platforms for the soviets. As was the official government institution of "political correctness", which at the time the west accurately called "censorship". It's amazing how most people who spout off about these things have no clue where these political ideas come from and what purpose they served. Sure enough though, they've seeped into our culture.

The whole idea of economic and social justice is that left to their own devices, people will always end up in classes of the privileged and the oppressed.

The way of getting "economic justice" is for the government to regulate things like production and wealth distribution as to avoid the formation of "economic classes".

There is also the idea of certain identities (gender, race, sexuality, religion) forming "social classes". Of course, all these things are just "social constructs". There are no actual genders, races or natural sexual behaviours. :rolleyes:

The way you keep those pesky "social classes" from forming is by enforced "political correctness". If you regulate people from being allowed to talk about differences in race, gender, etc. those "myths" will not be able to divide people into "social classes". With the elimination of economic classes and social classes everybody can finally be "equal".

It's communism 101. All you need is for the government to control everything to make sure that no economic or social classes form and everything will be super awesome.

[RidonKs]

we agree on a lot but i think your history is misinformed


It's amazing how most people who spout off about these things have no clue where these political ideas come from and what purpose they served.
here's the distinction you drew which should shed light on the history of "social justice". that term was used in one translation or another by the communist party in the soviet union. it was mostly used for propaganda and you rightly point out that there was also a lot of censorship. if you want the honest truth about the russian revolution which was really anything but revolutionary, i'd be happy to go into it more.

that's "what purpose they served".

but the origins of the political ideas, which you also mention, reach much much much further back. social justice has a history that dates back to ancient greece and quite possibly beyond as the archaeological record wears thin. i mean just think about the term; the most famous philosophy book probably ever written is almost entirely about "justice". almost by definition, justice is only possible in a "social" arrangement with multiple human beings. nothing is just or unjust if you're on an island by yourself. so the phrase is actually just a redundant articulation of the meat of it, which is "justice". which the soviet union surely did not invent. nor did marx as it happens; you should be very careful in distinguishing the political ideas advocated by marx and the policies implemented by the soviet union. there are similarities and there are differences. another investigation worth undertaking would be how the policies the soviet union adopted in its early days squared with the notion of "social justice" (and "economic justice" i guess?) as it was properly understood at the time. i don't know enough to say much more than a lot of popular left wing and marxist scholars thought the revolution of 1917 was more like a coup and that the bolsheviks were way out of line in taking power. as did the west incidentally for very different reasons, but that's another story.

i hope you follow me and understand why what you said is inaccurate.


"Economic justice" and "social justice" were key platforms for the soviets. As was the official government institution of "political correctness", which at the time the west accurately called "censorship". It's amazing how most people who spout off about these things have no clue where these political ideas come from and what purpose they served. Sure enough though, they've seeped into our culture.

The whole idea of economic and social justice is that left to their own devices, people will always end up in classes of the privileged and the oppressed.

The way of getting "economic justice" is for the government to regulate things like production and wealth distribution as to avoid the formation of "economic classes".

There is also the idea of certain identities (gender, race, sexuality, religion) forming "social classes". Of course, all these things are just "social constructs". There are no actual genders, races or natural sexual behaviours.
agree with everything here except in that third paragraph where it seems you left out a silent "only" right after "the". it would be more accurate to say "one way of gett....". because of course government regulation isn't the only way to achieve fairer levels of wealth distribution, nor is it the only way to approach the notion of social justice, which i should add i still haven't defined. though neither have you really.

there are way too many ways to go about approaching economic justice or social justice or world peace or egalitarianism or whatever the hell it is you want to call it.... there are inefficient ways, there are ways that lack foresight, there are ways that empower people by turning them from apathetic consumers to active citizens, there are violent and destructive ways, there are pragmatic but costly ways, there are good ways and bad ways and all the ways in between.

that the soviet union donned the name of communism, perverted the name of socialism, and used the name of marxism as an integral pretense is all very wrong and also has very little to do with any of those things. in the same way the nazis perverted socialism, in the same way the israelis pervert security, in the same way the americans pervert democracy and consevative/liberal and free trade and libertarianism and all kinds of other terms, in the same way the greeks perverted civilization (that ones persisted to their descendants), in the same way my own nova scotian provincial government from a few years ago was perverting words like bipartisanship or my federal government was and continues to pervert stability, in the same way angela merkel and david cameron pervert fiscal austerity.


The way you keep those pesky "social classes" from forming is by enforced "political correctness". If you regulate people from being allowed to talk about differences in race, gender, etc. those "myths" will not be able to divide people into "social classes". With the elimination of economic classes and social classes everybody can finally be "equal".

It's communism 101. All you need is for the government to control everything to make sure that no economic or social classes form and everything will be super awesome.
you're using very shallow definitions that basically qualify as straw men... political correctness is a cultural phenomenon with barely any modern political enforcement. it has very little to do with what we're talking about, which is social justice and socialism and the endgame of communism as marx described. you do know marx's four stages of revolution yes? his theory of history?

[NumberSix]

we agree on a lot but i think your history is misinformed


here's the distinction you drew which should shed light on the history of "social justice". that term was used in one translation or another by the communist party in the soviet union. it was mostly used for propaganda and you rightly point out that there was also a lot of censorship. if you want the honest truth about the russian revolution which was really anything but revolutionary, i'd be happy to go into it more.

that's "what purpose they served".

but the origins of the political ideas, which you also mention, reach much much much further back. social justice has a history that dates back to ancient greece and quite possibly beyond as the archaeological record wears thin. i mean just think about the term; the most famous philosophy book probably ever written is almost entirely about "justice". almost by definition, justice is only possible in a "social" arrangement with multiple human beings. nothing is just or unjust if you're on an island by yourself. so the phrase is actually just a redundant articulation of the meat of it, which is "justice". which the soviet union surely did not invent. nor did marx as it happens; you should be very careful in distinguishing the political ideas advocated by marx and the policies implemented by the soviet union. there are similarities and there are differences. another investigation worth undertaking would be how the policies the soviet union adopted in its early days squared with the notion of "social justice" (and "economic justice" i guess?) as it was properly understood at the time. i don't know enough to say much more than a lot of popular left wing and marxist scholars thought the revolution of 1917 was more like a coup and that the bolsheviks were way out of line in taking power. as did the west incidentally for very different reasons, but that's another story.

i hope you follow me and understand why what you said is inaccurate.


agree with everything here except in that third paragraph where it seems you left out a silent "only" right after "the". it would be more accurate to say "one way of gett....". because of course government regulation isn't the only way to achieve fairer levels of wealth distribution, nor is it the only way to approach the notion of social justice, which i should add i still haven't defined. thyough neither have you really.

there are way too many ways to go about approaching economic justice or social justice or world peace or egalitarianism or whatever the hell it is you want to call it.... there are inefficient ways, there are ways that lack foresight, there are ways that empower people by turning them from apathetic consumers to active citizens, there are violent and destructive ways, there are pragmatic but costly ways, there are good ways and bad ways and all the ways in between.

that the soviet union donned the name of communism, perverted the name of socialism, and used the name of marxism as an integral pretense is all very wrong and also has very little to do with any of those things. in the same way the nazis perverted socialism, in the same way the israelis pervert security, in the same way the americans pervert democracy and consevative/liberal and free trade and libertarianism and all kinds of other terms, in the same way the greeks perverted civilization (that ones persisted to their descendants), in the same way my own nova scotian provincial government from a few years ago was perverting words like bipartisanship or my federal government was and continues to pervert stability, in the same way angela merkel and david cameron pervert fiscal austerity.


you're using very shallow definitions that basically qualify as straw men... political correctness is a cultural phenomenon with barely any modern political enforcement. it has very little to do with what we're talking about, which is social justice and socialism and the endgame of communism as marx described. you do know marx's four stages of revolution yes? his theory of history?
Your post is such a mess I don't even know where to start.

I do t know why your going off on a tangent about who was the first person ever to use the word "justice". Come on now.

It also seems you can't tell where I'm being blatantly sarcastic. I'll take the blame on the one. I wrote it. If the reader doesn't get my tone, that's my own fault.

Yes, I'm well aware of Marxs insane nonsense theories. Even the parts you're probably not aware of, such as his position of genocide of what he called "ethnic trash" being necessary.

I wasn't talking about "modern cultural phenomena" of political correctness. I'm talking g about it as a policy in the Soviet Union.


Everything I say on here is from my memory. Whereas most of what you write comes off as if you googled stuff you don't understand and then typed it acting like its a subject you're familiar with as if you didn't just read it for the first time 45 seconds ago. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it comes off IMO. You don't seem like a person who is well versed in the subject and you seem to be oblivious to what many of my points are even in reference to. Again, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. We aren't professional writers. Ideas don't always come off as seemlessly in a post as we intend. No insult intended.

[RidonKs]

dude you aren't being specific in any way whatsoever. you aren't referring to any policies i can look up, you aren't referring to any philosophies as i understand them by looking them up, you aren't speaking about history so that we can build a common narrative together. you're doing none of that.

and then you say "im writing this completely from memory". well i'm not and the memory i am using is quite fresh. so who should we believe?

perhaps if we shared duties of research we might be able to get something out of this. but if one of us is just spouting off whatever comes into his mind from memory and experience and not investigating scientifically, which is required for issues such as those we've been discussing, well then why even bother.



i probably did miss your sarcasm lol tho i dont even know where

[NumberSix]

dude you aren't being specific in any way whatsoever. you aren't referring to any policies i can look up, you aren't referring to any philosophies as i understand them by looking them up, you aren't speaking about history so that we can build a common narrative together. you're doing none of that.

Your entire position is "You're wrong, and once I find out why, I'll tell you. Now tell me how to do that."

[GimmeThat]

if the governments focus isn't on the wage

its success must come from the focus on elsewhere

[NumberSix]

if the governments focus isn't on the wage

its success must come from the focus on elsewhere
Germany has never forgotten the power of actually producing products.

Germany is only 25% the population of the USA, but they pull in the same amount of money on exports. They understand the value of trade. They manufacture good products and people all over the world want to buy them.

[GimmeThat]

Germany has never forgotten the power of actually producing products.

Germany is only 25% the population of the USA, but they pull in the same amount of money on exports. They understand the value of trade. They manufacture good products and people all over the world want to buy them.


I personally meant the ability to draw foreign investments
all while protecting the rights/benefits that of German citizens

or perhaps the German government had been excellent in investing in foreign countries to make up the differences as well.



unless there's something about the power of manufacturing products and minimum wage.

[StephHamann]

Germany is done in 50 years, look at first grader pictures 75% turkish.


http://www.funke-gs.do.nw.schule.de/bilder/andere%20Klasse%202014/63_134830G5184_1b.jpg

[Knoe Itawl]

The irony of this post is, the guy that Azraokotil (whatever his name is) used in his pic as an example of the inner city youth who is a waste of space is actually a rapper named Hopsin who not only advocates hard work and avoiding the traps of the street, he actually has a song/video that Azscrotil (whatever his name is) would likely agree with every word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRVOOwFNp5U

Now we're all guilty of it but this should illustrate the folly of just jumping to conclusions based on the way someone looks.

Him and his girl btw

http://distilleryimage0.ak.instagram.com/8222ccb07aa111e3b7891218949d1064_8.jpg

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Donks = Raiden
Starface = Shao Kahn

[RidonKs]

The irony of this post is, the guy that Azraokotil (whatever his name is) used in his pic as an example of the inner city youth who is a waste of space is actually a rapper named Hopsin who not only advocates hard work and avoiding the traps of the street, he actually has a song/video that Azscrotil (whatever his name is) would likely agree with every word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRVOOwFNp5U

Now we're all guilty of it but this should illustrate the folly of just jumping to conclusions based on the way someone looks.

Him and his girl btw

http://distilleryimage0.ak.instagram.com/8222ccb07aa111e3b7891218949d1064_8.jpg
:applause: knoe droppin bombs

[RidonKs]

Your entire position is "You're wrong, and once I find out why, I'll tell you. Now tell me how to do that."
that's not my position. you took issue with something i posted. i can't understand for the life of me what issue you really had.

i wrote


it could be because germany has a long history of progressive politics following something of the scandanavian model, that social justice and economic progress are interdependent and reinforcing. germany has one of the best educational systems in the world. it's almost all publicly funded and free of charge, starting with kids still in their diapers and staying on the house all the way up to the most prestigious academic institutions they have to offer. private schooling is not allowed; attendance at public school is
compulsory starting at 6 y/o.

you wrote

"Social justice" is a soviet/communist idea, not Scandinavian

my point was not that social justice originated in scandanavia. it was that the scandanavian model, which you may or not be familiar with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), combines free market economics with a modern welfare state. in other words, it incorporates both social justice and economic efficiency that other models, such as the state capitalist democracies in the west or the state socialist single party systems in the east, do not achieve.

in other words, calling "social justice" a soviet/communist idea isn't just completely wrong, it has very little to do with what i'm saying. and the core of our disagreement is probably over the definition of social justice, which is why i tried to articulate both some of its history and aspects of its etymology.

[NumberSix]

that's not my position. you took issue with something i posted. i can't understand for the life of me what issue you really had.

i wrote



you wrote


my point was not that social justice originated in scandanavia. it was that the scandanavian model, which you may or not be familiar with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), combines free market economics with a modern welfare state. in other words, it incorporates both social justice and economic efficiency that other models, such as the state capitalist democracies in the west or the state socialist single party systems in the east, do not achieve.

in other words, calling "social justice" a soviet/communist idea isn't just completely wrong, it has very little to do with what i'm saying. and the core of our disagreement is probably over the definition of social justice, which is why i tried to articulate both some of its history and aspects of its etymology.
That's not what social justice means. You're making an entire argument out of refusing acknowledge the common use of the phrase and insisting on using your own definition. As is typical of a Marxist/leftist, instead of arguing the merits of ideas, you want to deflect into an argument over the definition of words.

If you insist on using "social justice" to mean "any kind of socialism" then there is really no discussion to be had.

Words and phrases have meaning. If you refuse to acknowledge their meanings, what can we really debate? If we were to debate "affirmative action" and you insisted that "it means any action that is positive", we can't really debate the merits of it because were just wasting our time over definitions.

[RidonKs]

That's not what social justice means. You're making an entire argument out of refusing acknowledge the common use of the phrase and insisting on using your own definition. As is typical of a Marxist/leftist, instead of arguing the merits of ideas, you want to deflect into an argument over the definition of words.

If you insist on using "social justice" to mean "any kind of socialism" then there is really no discussion to be had.

Words and phrases have meaning. If you refuse to acknowledge their meanings, what can we really debate? If we were to debate "affirmative action" and you insisted that "it means any action that is positive", we can't really debate the merits of it because were just wasting our time over definitions.
yes thank you for that explanation of the importance of semantics

i do define social justice quite broadly, though certainly not as "anything good" or "socialism". but i do think the concept has a lot more meat on its bone than you've acknowledged. and marxist or leftist or not, i've studied the history of the concept at least a bit. and in my opinion it does have a very long history.

i actually highly doubt we disagree on the definition of social justice; whether its colloquial or its historical meaning. it's pretty standard and you'd have to twist it a lot to find much discrepancy.

now if you would like to finally present some evidence for your assertion that it originated in the soviet union and has nothing to do with aristotle or the scandanavian model, feel free.

[RidonKs]

but just to ensure we're taking a somewhat productive course, here is the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice).... this is pretty much the sole context through which i'm referring to the word.


While the concept of social justice can be traced through Ancient and Renaissance philosophy, such as Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza and Thomas Paine,[citation needed] the term "social justice" only became used explicitly from the 1840s.

which is what i said. and why i loosely connected "justice", a much older idea, and "social justice", which was coined more recently but isn't so different from its roots. the soviet union is mentioned all but once in that entire wiki article. not that wiki is some advanced definitive source but it does paint a compelling picture in this instance....

once again i ask; tell me why i'm wrong.

[Nanners]

Social justice is "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society". Classically, "justice" (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) referred to ensuring that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles, and received what was due from society. "Social justice" is generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community.

a lot of what is called social justice is basically just common sense - "treat your neighbors as you want them to treat you".

many of these ideas are as old as civilization itself.

[RidonKs]

lol i dunno why the fk he nitpicked that one phrase from a bunch of posts in this thread and decided to argue it was all a soviet invention/plot :lol

number six on water flouridation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM)

[Nanners]

well he has a point, fluoridation is pretty socialist :oldlol:

anyway i am against fluoridation, but thats another discussion

[NumberSix]

Social justice is "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society". Classically, "justice" (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) referred to ensuring that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles, and received what was due from society. "Social justice" is generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community.


a lot of what is called social justice is basically just common sense - "treat your neighbors as you want them to treat you".

many of these ideas are as old as civilization itself.
Nice, ambiguous language, but you glossed over a major point..... Who?


"The distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges"..... By who?

We're not talking about "treat your neighbour, blah blah" . It isn't YOU who decides what to distribute. Who is it that is deciding exactly how much wealth, opportunities and privileges we all get? Who is it that is making sure that you "fulfil your role to society"? Who decides what your role to society is? Who decides "what is due to you" for doing so?

It's easy to glance by it and not realize it, but we're talking about communism.

[Nanners]

Nice, ambiguous language, but you glossed over a major point..... Who?


I didnt gloss over anything, thats just a copy pasta of the first paragraph from the wikipedia link that donks posted.




We're not talking about "treat your neighbour, blah blah" . It isn't YOU who decides what to distribute. Who is it that is deciding exactly how much wealth opportunities and privileges we all get? Who is it that is making sure that you "fulfil your role to society"? Who decides what your role to society is? Who decides "what is due to you" for doing so?


You should direct these questions to someone who lives in norway, sweeden, finland, denmark... any of the socialist northern european countries really. I assume that the people who live in these countries vote on their laws and regulations, or something like that.

[RidonKs]

so your position numbersix, without your having offered any proof so its tricky to nail down, is that social justice and socialism are the exact same thing and they originated with the soviet union... is that an accurate paraphrase?

your reasoning for that based on your last post appears to have something to do with the right to control one's own property... which conflicts with the values of social justice/socialism (your definition) which demand redistribution from an overarching authority.

correct?

[dubeta]

The only thing minimum wage will ever do is increase costs, and therefore cause inflation, causing a further increase in minimum wage


Its a never ending cycle

[RidonKs]

The only thing minimum wage will ever do is increase costs, and therefore cause inflation, causing a further increase in minimum wage


Its a never ending cycle
this is a half-truth... tho since you included the word "only", its just factually incorrect.

[NumberSix]

so your position numbersix, without your having offered any proof so its tricky to nail down, is that social justice and socialism are the exact same thing and they originated with the soviet union... is that an accurate paraphrase?
A perfect example of your lack of understanding. You're exactly wrong on both counts.

Social justice is NOT simply a synonym for socialism. Obviously, socialism didn't originate in the USSR. Obviously.

[NumberSix]

The only thing minimum wage will ever do is increase costs, and therefore cause inflation, causing a further increase in minimum wage


Its a never ending cycle
The problem with minimum wage is that it negates "market value". The problem, all the market rigging on the other side does too. You can't really complain about market value being negated in one direction when the same is being done in the other.

Market rigging is allowing employers to pay BELOW market value, so in truth, minimum wage increases are mostly just hiking it back up closer to true market value.

The real answer is not minimum wages though. It's to end the market rigging practices that let employers pay below market value.

[RidonKs]

well why don't we end this polite and civil discourse with you offering up your definition of social justice, because that first lengthy post you made isn't exactly to the point (neither are any of my posts of course)... i'm kinda curious now.

i pretty much already subscribed to the wikipedia posting which i don't think there is much to argue with. i honestly don't think we disagree here conceptually. just historically. but w/e.

[RidonKs]

The problem with minimum wage is that it negates "market value". The problem, all the market rigging on the other side does too. You can't really complain about market value being negated in one direction when the same is being done in the other.

Market rigging is allowing employers to pay BELOW market value, so in truth, minimum wage increases are mostly just hiking it back up closer to true market value.

The real answer is not minimum wages though. It's to end the market rigging practices that let employers pay below market value.
:applause: