Simple case AGAINST raising the minimum wage.

[Patrick Chewing]

No math skillz.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tY-7Dg5Kqs

[Nanners]

we shouldnt raise the minimum wage because a random subway employee doesnt have math skillz?

as usual, a very compelling argument patrick.

[Patrick Chewing]

we shouldnt raise the minimum wage because a random subway employee doesnt have math skillz?

as usual, a very compelling argument patrick.


You think that's random?? LOL. That's everywhere you go, partna!

[Nanners]

patrick is probably the old man in this video :oldlol:

[Patrick Chewing]

You can't be against everything I post on here.

You mean to tell me that you wouldn't have a serious problem with this clown making $15 an hour and his only answer to you when he clearly cannot see his mistake is, "I don't control the prices"???

C'mon man.

[Rake2204]

Minimum wage argument aside, that video was fascinating to watch, just in terms of the human dynamic involved.

Sidenote, I tried looking up a news article on this situation by Googling "subway employee can't add". Instead, one of the top results was about a used condom that's apparently been hanging on the grab handle of the F train for three weeks now: http://gothamist.com/2014/10/14/used_condom_f_subway.php

So there's that.

[Jameerthefear]

I want $10/hr
Stupid ass Republicans won't raise min. wage. SMH. I think I'd make like $50ish xtra dollars

[ThePhantomCreep]

Even corporate shill Mitt Romney believes the minimum wage should be raised. It has not kept pace with rising costs of living.

[Nanners]

You can't be against everything I post on here.

You mean to tell me that you wouldn't have a serious problem with this clown making $15 an hour and his only answer to you when he clearly cannot see his mistake is, "I don't control the prices"???

C'mon man.

i wouldnt be against everything you post on here if you would stop posting so much retarded shit

[RidonKs]

Minimum wage argument aside, that video was fascinating to watch, just in terms of the human dynamic involved.
:cheers:

[Patrick Chewing]

i wouldnt be against everything you post on here if you would stop posting so much retarded shit


Things you don't agree with = Retarded


Answer my question.

[Nanners]

Answer my question.

i have absolutely zero problem with that clown being paid $15 an hour

[Patrick Chewing]

i have absolutely zero problem with that clown being paid $15 an hour


So you're rewarding stupidity then??


That's close to Teacher/Police Officer salary.


Did you get a 6th place award in school or something??

[DonDadda59]

I'm confused... the case against making wages commensurate (somewhat) with living expenses is one subway employee being bad at math? That's not really an argument at all.

[Nanners]

So you're rewarding stupidity then??


That's close to Teacher/Police Officer salary.


Did you get a 6th place award in school or something??

If you actually think that raising the minimum wage = rewarding stupidity, you are a fvcking idiot.

Average salary for Teachers and Cops is like $25 per hour, and I think many of them are underpaid anyway.

[Nanners]

I'm confused... the case against making wages commensurate (somewhat) with living expenses is one subway employee being bad at math? That's not really an argument at all.

its kind of like arguing that all republicans are idiots based on one republican posting idiotic shit on this forum. :oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

its kind of like arguing that all republicans are idiots based on one republican posting idiotic shit on this forum. :oldlol:

At least Chewing's corporate overlords will be thrilled to learn he's helping to keep the pesky proletariat down... one youtube video at a time. :applause:

[Fawker]

you can not be independent lower than $20/hour...and living single

[Patrick Chewing]

Average salary for Teachers and Cops is like $25 per hour, and I think many of them are underpaid anyway.


LOL OK, perhaps teachers with quite a few years under their belts.

Avg starting teacher salary is nowhere close.

http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html


Hey, I'm all for giving raises, but to award this cretin with $15 an hour for spacing out ham and cheese evenly on a piece of bread and not knowing math skills is just stupid. Like most of you on this board just wanting everyone to be equal and free and receive 9th place awards in school.

People should not be making careers out of cashiering at Subway or McDonalds. So quit trying to argue that they can't support themselves on the current minimum wage.

[SugarHill]

At least Chewing's corporate overlords will be thrilled to learn he's helping to keep the pesky proletariat down... one youtube video at a time. :applause:
:roll:

[Rake2204]

LOL OK, perhaps teachers with quite a few years under their belts.

Avg starting teacher salary is nowhere close.

http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html


Hey, I'm all for giving raises, but to award this cretin with $15 an hour for spacing out ham and cheese evenly on a piece of bread and not knowing math skills is just stupid. Like most of you on this board just wanting everyone to be equal and free and receive 9th place awards in school.

People should not be making careers out of cashiering at Subway or McDonalds. So quit trying to argue that they can't support themselves on the current minimum wage.I wish to be forthright in my ignorance regarding what minimum wage should or should not be. I do not fully understand the dynamics of the matter. Logically, I feel minimum wage should allow someone who works 40 hours a week to support themselves. As for what it means to support oneself, I suppose that's where the debate begins.

Anyway, as a certified teacher who has a history of working with adults looking to earn their high school diploma or GED, I've often come face-to-face with an interesting notion: I'm not sure I work as hard to get as little as many people who work minimum wage jobs receive. I mean, teaching challenges me mentally and sometimes physically, but I think I could handle being an educator way better than I could working as a drive-through sandwich maker at Blimpie.

That said, I understand one's pay is not just based upon how hard their job may be. But it was interesting to observe, and a little flummoxing to handle - to sit in class with people who were at times twice my age, and know I'm making more money by teaching these guys lessons than they do by working their butts off at whatever minimum wage farm job they could find.

I've worked with a lot of people who were actively trying their hardest just to earn a high school diploma and I'm honestly unsure if they'd ever be capable of rising higher from an academic standpoint. I'd like to believe they could find a place that would pay them a living wage in exchange for the hard work they'd be willing to provide.

It's most certainly an interesting topic to think about.

[AI Thornton]

The debates in this thread :lol

[NumberSix]

:facepalm:

People actually believe "I want more money" Is a legit reason to FORCE business owners to pay more than what they want to.

If you want more money, have you not considered getting a higher paying job? If you're not willing to work for what is being offered, don't take the job. If nobody is willing to work for what a business is paying, the owner will have to offer more and that's how we see how much that job is actually worth.

If enough people are willing to work for what subway is already paying, then that is what the job is worth.

[Jailblazers7]

I saw an interesting theory that a raise in the min wage is actually an acquiescence to general wage growth trends. Business leaders see the upward pressure that is happening in the labor market and easy up their stance to regulators so that they can get good publicity because wages were going to rise anway. I think we see a little bit of that with places like Starbucks bumping pay.

[DeuceWallaces]

Lol OP has a few screws loose. We can only pray he isn't raising some idiot kids with his Youtube-Conservative parenting.

[DukeDelonte13]

:facepalm:

People actually believe "I want more money" Is a legit reason to FORCE business owners to pay more than what they want to.

If you want more money, have you not considered getting a higher paying job? If you're not willing to work for what is being offered, don't take the job. If nobody is willing to work for what a business is paying, the owner will have to offer more and that's how we see how much that job is actually worth.

If enough people are willing to work for what subway is already paying, then that is what the job is worth.


companies shouldn't have the government paying their employees. That's what happens when the min wage is too low. You want uncle sam helping McDonald's feed and house its workers? Keep min wage low.

[NumberSix]

companies shouldn't have the government paying their employees. That's what happens when the min wage is too low. You want uncle sam helping McDonald's feed and house its workers? Keep min wage low.
Uncle Sam splitting the difference is what makes it possible for companies to pay below market value. If the government didn't give additional benefits to people that don't make enough, McDonald's would have to pay actual market value. Right now, they have no motive to pay employees more because the government will make up the difference for what people need to live. If the government didn't do that, McDonald's would have to actually pay what employees are willing to work for.

[DukeDelonte13]

Uncle Sam splitting the difference is what makes it possible for companies to pay below market value. If the government didn't give additional benefits to people that don't make enough, McDonald's would have to pay actual market value. Right now, they have no motive to pay employees more because the government will make up the difference for what people need to live. If the government didn't do that, McDonald's would have to actually pay what employees are willing to work for.

would raising the minimum wage slightly be a lot more easier than cutting all social benefits? :hammerhead:

[NumberSix]

would raising the minimum wage slightly be a lot more easier than cutting all social benefits? :hammerhead:
For some business, yes. For others, no.

The simple fact is that not all jobs have equal value. The problem with the minimum wage is this. Say there is a new minimum wage of $13. What that doesn't take into account is that there are jobs that just aren't worth $13 dollars an hour. If a business owner wants to pay someone $10.50 an hour to simply say "hello" to every customer who enter the business and plenty of people are willing to do that very easy task for that amount, why should the government say "NO! You have to pay $13"?

The government shouldn't be interfering with how much things are or are not worth. Wether it's services or goods. Nobody in their right minds would think it is sensible for the government to declare "Cans of soda can never be less than $1". That's ridiculous. If a business wants to sell sodas for $0.90, that's none of the governments business.

If a business wants to charge $1,000 for a sandwich, that's also none of the governments business. If it's unreasonable, people simply won't buy it. If people DO buy it, that is none of the government's business.

It's not governments place to enforce it's opinion of what value products have, including labour.

[Rake2204]

For some business, yes. For others, no.

The simple fact is that not all jobs have equal value. The problem with the minimum wage is this. Say there is a new minimum wage of $13. What that doesn't take into account is that there are jobs that just aren't worth $13 dollars an hour. If a business owner wants to pay someone $10.50 an hour to simply say "hello" to every customer who enter the business and plenty of people are willing to do that very easy task for that amount, why should the government say "NO! You have to pay $13"?I'll say again, I really do not have a great grasp on this issue so I'm pretty sure all my thoughts will be easily refuted. I'm sort of just looking to learn here. Still, if there was no minimum wage at all, is there a chance that tons of jobs may just go to the lowest bidder possible? Could the Walmart greeter start at $10/hour, until someone else - who has no job - decides he could do that job for $8/hour? At which point the next couple of guys might somehow knock it down to $5/hour or below, since it all might be better than zero?

Are there enough good jobs in America (teaching, for example) for everyone who wants to make a good living - to make a good living? Isn't there a relative pinch on employment opportunities as it is, even including minimum wage fast food or greeter work? If the worth of those jobs dipped to where people really couldn't survive on their wages, wouldn't that just make the legitimate living job market that much smaller and that much more inaccessible to many, many more people?

[NumberSix]

I'll say again, I really do not have a great grasp on this issue so I'm pretty sure all my thoughts will be easily refuted. I'm sort of just looking to learn here. Still, if there was no minimum wage at all, is there a chance that tons of jobs may just go to the lowest bidder possible? Could the Walmart greeter start at $10/hour, until someone else - who has no job - decides he could do that job for $8/hour? At which point the next couple of guys might somehow knock it down to $5/hour or below, since it all might be better than zero?
You know, there's a simple way to figure out if that is true....

Ask yourself? Are ALL jobs minimum wage?

Why do any above minimum wage jobs exist? What is stopping people from offering to do the same job for minimum wage?

There actually IS a problem with people doing jobs for less than minimum wage though. It's illegal hiring of illegal aliens.

[iamgine]

For some business, yes. For others, no.

The simple fact is that not all jobs have equal value. The problem with the minimum wage is this. Say there is a new minimum wage of $13. What that doesn't take into account is that there are jobs that just aren't worth $13 dollars an hour. If a business owner wants to pay someone $10.50 an hour to simply say "hello" to every customer who enter the business and plenty of people are willing to do that very easy task for that amount, why should the government say "NO! You have to pay $13"?

The government shouldn't be interfering with how much things are or are not worth. Wether it's services or goods. Nobody in their right minds would think it is sensible for the government to declare "Cans of soda can never be less than $1". That's ridiculous. If a business wants to sell sodas for $0.90, that's none of the governments business.

If a business wants to charge $1,000 for a sandwich, that's also none of the governments business. If it's unreasonable, people simply won't buy it. If people DO buy it, that is none of the government's business.

It's not governments place to enforce it's opinion of what value products have, including labour.
It's not perfect, but minimum wage is a decent solution.

If it's not minimum wage, it will be unions. And that has its own problems.

[Rake2204]

You know, there's a simple way to figure out if that is true....

Ask yourself? Are ALL jobs minimum wage?

Why do any above minimum wage jobs exist? What is stopping people from offering to do the same job for minimum wage?

There actually IS a problem with people doing jobs for less than minimum wage though. It's illegal hiring of illegal aliens.Are all jobs minimum wage? Hmm, I do not believe so. More flat pay likely has to do with specialization, demand, and numerous other factors, yes?

For the jobs that require little or no experience or specialization (it theoretically does not take too much to learn how to milk cows, let's say), if there was not a minimum wage attached to the "no experience required" positions, wouldn't they all dip in wage, perhaps significantly, as people fought for any kind of employment, even if it only paid $4 per hour?

In turn, wouldn't that only shrink the legitimate American job market even further? Whereas many Americans are trying to survive off their minimum wage fast food job now, wouldn't an even lower wage possibly ruin any ability of living off such a profession? If so, is there enough room in the legitimate "living wage" professions for the formerly minimum wage earning workers to move on up and find jobs that pay a wage for which they can survive upon?

[NumberSix]

It's not perfect, but minimum wage is a decent solution.

If it's not minimum wage, it will be unions. And that has its own problems.
The minimum wage has other drawbacks though....


In Mexico, the minimum wage is 58 cents an hour. Yeah, you read that right. 58 cents an hour. When Mexicans find out that across the border it's $7.25, and that they can literally make more in an hour in America than they do in a day in Mexico..... What happens?

If you understand the phrase "flooding the market" you know what happens.

[iamgine]

For some business, yes. For others, no.

The simple fact is that not all jobs have equal value. The problem with the minimum wage is this. Say there is a new minimum wage of $13. What that doesn't take into account is that there are jobs that just aren't worth $13 dollars an hour. If a business owner wants to pay someone $10.50 an hour to simply say "hello" to every customer who enter the business and plenty of people are willing to do that very easy task for that amount, why should the government say "NO! You have to pay $13"?

The government shouldn't be interfering with how much things are or are not worth. Wether it's services or goods. Nobody in their right minds would think it is sensible for the government to declare "Cans of soda can never be less than $1". That's ridiculous. If a business wants to sell sodas for $0.90, that's none of the governments business.

If a business wants to charge $1,000 for a sandwich, that's also none of the governments business. If it's unreasonable, people simply won't buy it. If people DO buy it, that is none of the government's business.

It's not governments place to enforce it's opinion of what value products have, including labour.
Also, you got it wrong. The government should and will interfere with prices when there's a problem. They won't say "no you can't sell it for X dollars." But they will make it so it is impossible for you to sell at that price. For example, if a company is importing cars and selling them for very very cheap, so cheap that it endangers all American car business, the government will impose restriction on car imports and raise import car tax so that millions of people doesn't lose their job overnight.

[iamgine]

The minimum wage has other drawbacks though....


In Mexico, the minimum wage is 58 cents an hour. Yeah, you read that right. 58 cents an hour. When Mexicans find out that across the border it's $7.25, and that they can literally make more in an hour in America than they do in a day in Mexico..... What happens?

If you understand the phrase "flooding the market" you know what happens.
Of course, I said it's not perfect. But I think the benefits outweigh the drawback.

[NumberSix]

Also, you got it wrong. The government should and will interfere with prices when there's a problem. They won't say "no you can't sell it for X dollars." But they will make it so it is impossible for you to sell at that price. For example, if a company is importing cars and selling them for very very cheap, so cheap that it endangers all American car business, the government will impose restriction on car imports and raise import car tax so that millions of people doesn't lose their job overnight.
Actually, the American government EXACTLY doesn't do that. That is why the market is flooded with cheap "Made In China" products knowing fully well that the Chinese currency is specifically rigged to be artificially low so that products are worth insanely less in American money than they are in Chinese money.

Imagine it like this........

Imagine Canada says "yeah, our Canadian dollar is only worth $0.25 American". It's not actually true, but by claiming this, every time Canada sells something to America they get to exchange what the got payed to 4x as much. This is what China does.

So, imagine that Canada makes a car that is worth like $40,000. They sell these cars in America for $10,000 dollars, which American companies obviously can't compete with. They have to sell their cars that are worth $40k for $40k if they want to make any money. But Canada can sell them in America for $10k and then just turn it into $40k in Canadian money. It's obvious rigging. This is what China does billions of times everyday on a very small scale.

[iamgine]

Actually, the American government EXACTLY doesn't do that. That is why the market is flooded with cheap "Made In China" products knowing fully well that the Chinese currency is specifically rigged to be artificially low so that products are worth insanely less in American money than they are in Chinese money.

Imagine it like this........

Imagine Canada says "yeah, our Canadian dollar is only worth $0.25 American". It's not actually true, but by claiming this, every time Canada sells something to America they get to exchange what the got payed to 4x as much. This is what China does.

So, imagine that Canada makes a car that is worth like $40,000. They sell these cars in America for $10,000 dollars, which American companies obviously can't compete with. They have to sell they're cars that are worth $40k for $40k if they want to make any money. But Canada can sell them in America for $10k and then just turn it into $40k in Canadian money. It's obvious rigging. This is what China does billions of times everyday on a very small scale.
I said if there's a problem. Like the problem I described above; a big magnitude problem. They may not interfere for every single problem, but they will do it and has done it before.

[NumberSix]

I said if there's a problem. Like the problem I described above; a big magnitude problem. They may not do it for every single problem, but they will do it and has done it before.
I just specifically explained to you that they don't.

You have to understand, small products are sold in bulk. Wal-Mart doesn't just buy like 10 (insert cheap product). They buy in quantities of like 100,000.

Forget our previous Canadian example. Imagine it's Mexico this time. While our fictional Canadian example was rigged to be 400% cheaper, imagine the Mexican currency is artificially rigged to be only 25% cheaper.

Even if each of the (insert cheap product) is only $8, an order of 100,000 units is $800,000. The same Mexican product is $600,000. Nobody will ever pay $800,000 for a shipment of products when they can get the same products for $600,000.

[iamgine]

I just specifically explained to you that they don't.

You have to understand, small products are sold in bulk. Wal-Mart doesn't just buy like 10 (insert cheap product). They buy in quantities of like 100,000.

Forget our previous Canadian example. Imagine it's Mexico this time. While our fictional Canadian example was rigged to be 400% cheaper, imagine the Mexican currency is artificially rigged to be only 25% cheaper.

Even if each of the (insert cheap product) is only $8, an order of 100,000 units is $800,000. The same Mexican product is $600,000. Nobody will ever pay $800,000 for a shipment of products when they can get the same products for $600,000.
You are saying they don't do it for what you're describing. I'm saying they may not interfere for every single problem, but they will interfere with prices if necessary and has done it before.

[NumberSix]

You are saying they don't do it for what you're describing. I'm saying they may not interfere for every single problem, but they will interfere with prices if necessary and has done it before.
First of all, if they have or haven't is not even remotely relevant. The argument is whether they SHOULD interfere, not if they do.

Second, you keep claiming that they do, but you give no examples. You just claim it, which gives us no indiction of wether or not it is beneficial which is the actual question. You don't say "here's is when they have done it, and this is how it was beneficial". You say "they've don it before" which gives no information one way or the other in answering the question of if it is the right or wrong course of action.

[iamgine]

First of all, if they have or haven't is not even remotely relevant. The argument is whether they SHOULD interfere, not if they do.

Second, you keep claiming that they do, but you give no examples. You just claim it, which gives us no indiction of wether or not it is beneficial which is the actual question. You don't say "here's is when they have done it, and this is how it was beneficial". You say "they've don it before" which gives no information one way or the other in answering the question of if it is the right or wrong course of action.
Of course they should in some cases. In my example above, are you of the opinion of them not doing anything?

[NumberSix]

Chinese currency manipulation isnt as bad as it once was. Theyve let it hit close to its real value as of late.
The hilarious thing about that is that they will take a giant loss the the debt America owes them. Assuming the president/congress doesn't decide to "adjust for inflation".

[Jameerthefear]

Quite obviously min wage should be raised and health care should be free

If you disagree you're an idealistic prick

not dum necessarily. But definitely an idealistic prick
<3 love u

[Jameerthefear]

:facepalm:

People actually believe "I want more money" Is a legit reason to FORCE business owners to pay more than what they want to.

If you want more money, have you not considered getting a higher paying job? If you're not willing to work for what is being offered, don't take the job. If nobody is willing to work for what a business is paying, the owner will have to offer more and that's how we see how much that job is actually worth.

If enough people are willing to work for what subway is already paying, then that is what the job is worth.
It is. Stop being a f*cking f*ggot. Think of all the shit I could do if I got like... almost $75 extra on paycheck. Would be awesome.

[RidonKs]

The minimum wage has other drawbacks though....


In Mexico, the minimum wage is 58 cents an hour. Yeah, you read that right. 58 cents an hour. When Mexicans find out that across the border it's $7.25, and that they can literally make more in an hour in America than they do in a day in Mexico..... What happens?

If you understand the phrase "flooding the market" you know what happens.
the reason the mexican minimum wage is so poor in the first place is because capital markets are international and largely unregulated whereas labour markets are national and quite strictly regulated.

this isn't my area of expertise but i believe you can go all the way back to adam smith to unveil how damaging this inconsistency truly is. and we're living right in the thick of it.

[Dresta]

I want $10/hr
Stupid ass Republicans won't raise min. wage. SMH. I think I'd make like $50ish xtra dollars
:roll:

No one's gonna pay you that kind of money.

[MadeFromDust]

They should lower the minimum wage so small businesses can hire more people and the unemployment rate can truly go down, not with concocted Obombernomics

[Jameerthefear]

:roll:

No one's gonna pay you that kind of money.
If it was min. wage they'd have to, you old mother f*cker.

[Pushxx]

Uncle Sam splitting the difference is what makes it possible for companies to pay below market value. If the government didn't give additional benefits to people that don't make enough, McDonald's would have to pay actual market value. Right now, they have no motive to pay employees more because the government will make up the difference for what people need to live. If the government didn't do that, McDonald's would have to actually pay what employees are willing to work for.

So true. Mainstream libertarianism is pretty shit and does the philosophy an injustice. It's too bad people don't understand how the government makes things worse for people.

[RidonKs]

So true. Mainstream libertarianism is pretty shit and does the philosophy an injustice. It's too bad people don't understand how the government makes things worse for people.
the bold is essentially mainstream [american] libertarianism

(distinct from libertarianism as its understood in most of the western world as well as historically)

[Pushxx]

the bold is essentially mainstream [american] libertarianism

(distinct from libertarianism as its understood in most of the western world as well as historically)

I'm not saying I don't agree with most of mainstream libertarianism's points of view. I'm saying the party in general is dogshit and filled with *******.

[kNIOKAS]

I wish to be forthright in my ignorance regarding what minimum wage should or should not be. I do not fully understand the dynamics of the matter. Logically, I feel minimum wage should allow someone who works 40 hours a week to support themselves. As for what it means to support oneself, I suppose that's where the debate begins.

Anyway, as a certified teacher who has a history of working with adults looking to earn their high school diploma or GED, I've often come face-to-face with an interesting notion: I'm not sure I work as hard to get as little as many people who work minimum wage jobs receive. I mean, teaching challenges me mentally and sometimes physically, but I think I could handle being an educator way better than I could working as a drive-through sandwich maker at Blimpie.

That said, I understand one's pay is not just based upon how hard their job may be. But it was interesting to observe, and a little flummoxing to handle - to sit in class with people who were at times twice my age, and know I'm making more money by teaching these guys lessons than they do by working their butts off at whatever minimum wage farm job they could find.

I've worked with a lot of people who were actively trying their hardest just to earn a high school diploma and I'm honestly unsure if they'd ever be capable of rising higher from an academic standpoint. I'd like to believe they could find a place that would pay them a living wage in exchange for the hard work they'd be willing to provide.

It's most certainly an interesting topic to think about.
This is the most interesting. You take on what the pay should be, taking in consideration what it takes to support oneself, also how what you do compares to others receiving less.

I would like to see you run analogical analysys but on the other end of the spectrum - what it takes to be a billionaire? Does one work harder to be one? I think that end is really underanalysed, while everybody seems to be ok mentalizing about the minimum wage and low skilled work.

[RidonKs]

I'm not saying I don't agree with most of mainstream libertarianism's points of view. I'm saying the party in general is dogshit and filled with *******.
ah. i misunderstood then, my mistake.

[Dresta]

If it was min. wage they'd have to, you old mother f*cker.
No, you'd just be laid enough because you aren't worth anything like that amount of money to any employer.

[RidonKs]

This is the most interesting. You take on what the pay should be, taking in consideration what it takes to support oneself, also how what you do compares to others receiving less.

I would like to see you run analogical analysys but on the other end of the spectrum - what it takes to be a billionaire? Does one work harder to be one? I think that end is really underanalysed, while everybody seems to be ok mentalizing about the minimum wage and low skilled work.
trying to analyse the status of meritocracy in a state capitalist social democracy like ours is like pissing in the wind imo... definitely interesting like you and rake said, but only for what people are already saying about it, as opposed to figuring out why what is being said is either right or wrong. since its probably neither as far as our puny human brains can guess.

[NumberSix]

trying to analyse the status of meritocracy in a state capitalist social democracy like ours is like pissing in the wind imo... definitely interesting like you and rake said, but only for what people are already saying about it, as opposed to figuring out why what is being said is either right or wrong. since its probably neither as far as our puny human brains can guess.
What you call "capitalism" has never been about meritocracy. 100% pure merit is not an achievable goal.

If my dad is a genius businessman who made billions and your dad is a regular joe who delivers mail, I'm clearly going to have advantages that you won't. That is the whole thing. There is no "equality". It's an imaginary word that has no actual meaning. Trying to enforce something that is utterly unrealistic serves no purpose.

NOBODY is equal. We all have our own mixture of advantages and disadvantages in life. Trying to "regulate" them all into some imaginary "equality" is not remotely feasible. Especially when you get into the business of picking-and-choosing which advantages/disadvantages to regulate and which to just take their natural course.

[kNIOKAS]

trying to analyse the status of meritocracy in a state capitalist social democracy like ours is like pissing in the wind imo... definitely interesting like you and rake said, but only for what people are already saying about it, as opposed to figuring out why what is being said is either right or wrong. since its probably neither as far as our puny human brains can guess.
Um not sure I got what you're saying.

I think it's never too late just start with a blank page and evaluate what's going on. A bit frustrating to see people trying to start a conversation but starting within the contemporary frame. Take a step back, see the bigger picture.

[kNIOKAS]

What you call "capitalism" has never been about meritocracy. 100% pure merit is not an achievable goal.

If my dad is a genius businessman who made billions and your dad is a regular joe who delivers mail, I'm clearly going to have advantages that you won't. That is the whole thing. There is no "equality". It's an imaginary word that has no actual meaning. Trying to enforce something that is utterly unrealistic serves no purpose.

NOBODY is equal. We all have our own mixture of advantages and disadvantages in life. Trying to "regulate" them all into some imaginary "equality" is not remotely feasible. Especially when you get into the business of picking-and-choosing which advantages/disadvantages to regulate and which to just take their natural course.
How do you concile what you said with say, the US constitution?

[RidonKs]

What you call "capitalism" has never been about meritocracy. 100% pure merit is not an achievable goal.

If my dad is a genius businessman who made billions and your dad is a regular joe who delivers mail, I'm clearly going to have advantages that you won't. That is the whole thing. There is no "equality". It's an imaginary word that has no actual meaning. Trying to enforce something that is utterly unrealistic serves no purpose.

NOBODY is equal. We all have our own mixture of advantages and disadvantages in life. Trying to "regulate" them all into some imaginary "equality" is not remotely feasible. Especially when you get into the business of picking-and-choosing which advantages/disadvantages to regulate and which to just take their natural course.
your first sentence is more or less what i was saying. so we agree.

as for the rest, you clearly haven't thought through the logical conclusion of what you are saying. if "regulating" people into an imaginary "equality" is not remotely feasible, i suppose that would mean the entire public education system is a total waste of time. it was initially implemented as a way to "regulate" the public into an imaginary "equality" of educational advantage. it continues to do exactly that more or less successfully. do you believe that public education is a waste of time?

or do you now wish to take a step back from the bold assertion that regulating social opportunity is not remotely feasible?



though of course theoretically i agree with you. the concept of equality among people of all different walks of life is an imaginary one. that's why it's called an ideal. that doesn't mean we should just ignore it anymore than we should ignore 'justice' or 'democracy' or 'freedom' because they are idealistic and impracticable in the real world. we strive for them because we believe in them.

maybe you don't believe in any form of equality, whether of opportunity or outcome or rights or bare minimum social circumstance... that's all well and good if it's the case. i find it odd and a little disturbing to be honest, but hey, to each their own. we're all different AMIRITE??

[Dresta]

How do you concile what you said with say, the US constitution?I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, which in calling men 'equal' was referring to legal equality (i.e. in contrast to the unequal legal status of people in the aristocratic societies that dominated the Western world at the time).

So what he says is reconciled just fine with the US Constitution. You can only aim for one standard of equality, because to aim at another, completely compromises the first. For example, you can't bring about material equality, or even equality of starting conditions (or even aim at it) without completely destroying the ideal of equality before the law (the only one that we can even come close to achieving, in my view).

[Dresta]

your first sentence is more or less what i was saying. so we agree.

as for the rest, you clearly haven't thought through the logical conclusion of what you are saying. if "regulating" people into an imaginary "equality" is not remotely feasible, i suppose that would mean the entire public education system is a total waste of time. it was initially implemented as a way to "regulate" the public into an imaginary "equality" of educational advantage. it continues to do exactly that more or less successfully. do you believe that public education is a waste of time?

or do you now wish to take a step back from the bold assertion that regulating social opportunity is not remotely feasible?

though of course theoretically i agree with you. the concept of equality among people of all different walks of life is an imaginary one. that's why it's called an ideal. that doesn't mean we should just ignore it anymore than we should ignore 'justice' or 'democracy' or 'freedom' because they are idealistic and impracticable in the real world. we strive for them because we believe in them.

maybe you don't believe in any form of equality, whether of opportunity or outcome or rights or bare minimum social circumstance... that's all well and good if it's the case. i find it odd and a little disturbing to be honest, but hey, to each their own. we're all different AMIRITE??You have misunderstood someone, as usual. His point was that 'equality' is a completely unobtainable ideal: not only is it vague, but a complete repudiation and contradiction of nature. Even if your beloved equality of economic conditions were achievable (which it isn't), it would serve no purpose because the natural want of each human being is to differentiate himself from the rest, to show that he is better than them, etc. So all that would happen is that natural inequalities like those of intelligence and appearance would become all that more important, and again, you would have life's winners and losers.

That's why the drive for equality, deep down, is a drive to make everybody exactly the same. This is why i often wonder whether its proponents don't have some deep-seated fear of their own inadequacy, and so want to limit those who have been given better advantages in life than they (because need i remind you: every single advantageous human characteristic, from good looks, to intelligence, to wealth, to work ethnic, to gregariousness and self-confidence, have nothing to do with merit and are purely the result of chance).

Unfortunately, nature makes some people better than others, and that's just the way life is, whether you like it or not.

[RidonKs]

You have misunderstood someone, as usual. His point was that 'equality' is a completely unobtainable ideal: not only is it vague, but a complete repudiation and contradiction of nature. Even if your beloved equality of economic conditions were achievable (which it isn't), it would serve no purpose because the natural want of each human being is to differentiate himself from the rest, to show that he is better than them, etc. So all that would happen is that natural inequalities like those of intelligence and appearance would become all that more important, and again, you would have life's winners and losers.

That's why the drive for equality, deep down, is a drive to make everybody exactly the same. This is why i often wonder whether its proponents don't have some deep-seated fear of their own inadequacy, and so want to limit those who have been given better advantages in life than they (because need i remind you: every single advantageous human characteristic, from good looks, to intelligence, to wealth, to work ethnic, to gregariousness and self-confidence, have nothing to do with merit and are purely the result of chance).

Unfortunately, nature makes some people better than others, and that's just the way life is, whether you like it or not.
sigh. i'll bite.


i didn't misunderstand shit. he said regulating people into equality is unfeasible. i offered up a very simple example, public education, in which the government DID regulate people into a KIND of equality.

i can say without a shred of doubt that public education achieved a closer equality of economic conditions for people from different walks of life than what came before. as i already explained to number six, it is not contradictory for an ideal to be unattainable at the same time our real world more or less approximates it.

i don't get to say that your beloved obsession with freedom isn't remotely achievable because people can't be entirely free; and then i point to what, legal constraints like yelling fire in a crowded theater, physical constraints like flapping my arms to fly, psychological constraints like anxiety or w/e. and then i say "see! your very conception of freedom is repudiated by nature!"

that's just a ridiculous argument. the same can be said for the ideal of equality. and as i said in the post above, there are many different ways to conceive of equality, and without specifying which one we're talking about, this conversation is going nowhere. probably where it was headed anyway.


for some reason you're intent on pretending that whenever a leftest says "equality" what they really mean is "sameness". nobody wants sameness. it's completely undesirable. and nobody believes sameness is even remotely possible.

yes there will always be 'winners and losers', no matter what you mean by that phrase. but if you trace history, you will find that the advantages of the winners and the disadvantages of the losers have been minimized by comparison to different eras. today being a loser isn't as bad as being a slave to the greeks. today being a winner isn't as good as being born to nobility in the middle ages. this is just patently obvious.

here's what you're missing. the more "equal" the circumstances and conditions and opportunities for people, the less magnified the inequality of outcome. and that's what the social justice warriors you deride for their lack of understanding or their lack of sophistication or w/e are really interested in. an approximation to the ideal of a certain form of equality that i think can fall generally under ".. of socioeconomic conditions".

and again, to argue that theoretically it's impossible to get there because its vague and its pie in the sky idealism and sometimes our natural inclinations as human beings veers away from it.... that by no means undermines the actual facts of the matter which are glaringly demonstrable. those facts are that institutional programming like public education (my example ive used the whole time, why stop now) DOES edge humanity closer to an equality of advantage. and once more, this isn't to say some day it will MAKE humanity equal. it won't. but the outcomes will be less magnified.


that last paragraph is just too rich. yes. i feel inadequate, you are clearly my better, thus i must bring you down to my level. you're just too goddamn amazing dresta! you and all those investment bankers and tyrants overseas and oil barons and media tycoons and super brilliant analysts in the pentagon and at the cato institute and all over the world anybody who advocates anything right of center.... my real problem is that i just know they're so much better than me and that deep-seated gut-wrenching angst manifests into my politics and turns me into a rabid bleeding heart SJW.

some of the things you say, good god.

i don't expect a response from you on this.

[kNIOKAS]

I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, which in calling men 'equal' was referring to legal equality (i.e. in contrast to the unequal legal status of people in the aristocratic societies that dominated the Western world at the time).

So what he says is reconciled just fine with the US Constitution. You can only aim for one standard of equality, because to aim at another, completely compromises the first. For example, you can't bring about material equality, or even equality of starting conditions (or even aim at it) without completely destroying the ideal of equality before the law (the only one that we can even come close to achieving, in my view).
To me all types of equality are interwinned. It's curious to see you see it the opposite way.

For example, the judge in US has recently ruled that it is constitutionally ok for money to be a measure of "free speech", and that lobbyism is essentially within the understanding of legal equality. That to me sounds contradictory - all men are born equal, but those who are rich have more say in the system. So, legally not equal?

[GimmeThat]

so, subsidies for the poor
and no subsidies on taxes for the rich


since you know,
minimum wage might be more correlated with inflation than your government fiscal budget.

[RidonKs]

To me all types of equality are interwinned. It's curious to see you see it the opposite way.

For example, the judge in US has recently ruled that it is constitutionally ok for money to be a measure of "free speech", and that lobbyism is essentially within the understanding of legal equality. That to me sounds contradictory - all men are born equal, but those who are rich have more say in the system. So, legally not equal?
just another version of different/separate but equal...

decked out marble washrooms vs smelly outhouses
(WELL EVERYBODY STILL GETS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM SO THEYRE EQUAL)

millions of dollars in campaign contributions vs attending single town hall forum
(WELL EVERYBODY STILL GETS TO VOTE SO THEYRE EQUAL)

[kNIOKAS]

so, subsidies for the poor
and no subsidies on taxes for the rich


since you know,
minimum wage might be more correlated with inflation than your government fiscal budget.
Your posts are empty my friend.

just another version of different/separate but equal...

decked out marble washrooms vs smelly outhouses
(WELL EVERYBODY STILL GETS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM SO THEYRE EQUAL)

millions of dollars in campaign contributions vs attending single town hall forum
(WELL EVERYBODY STILL GETS TO VOTE SO THEYRE EQUAL)
It's admit that and redefine what you (we) declare, or disagree with that and look for what equality is.

Wonder how anybody be fine with the theory and practise misconnecting.

[RidonKs]

equality is.... complicated :lol

[NumberSix]

To me all types of equality are interwinned. It's curious to see you see it the opposite way.

For example, the judge in US has recently ruled that it is constitutionally ok for money to be a measure of "free speech", and that lobbyism is essentially within the understanding of legal equality. That to me sounds contradictory - all men are born equal, but those who are rich have more say in the system. So, legally not equal?
And those who are smarter are able to make more convincing arguments. Those who have media platforms are able to get their speech heard by more people. Those who hold opinions that are already popular are met with less hostility than opinions that aren't.

I don't see how money can be targeted as being different than any other speech advantage.

There is no rational argument for monetary support of political campaigns not being political speech.

I would fully support an amendment for corporations not being able to fund/donate to political campaigns. I don't however see how you possibly make the case that individuals supporting political campaigns isn't the definition of protected political speech.

[NumberSix]

equality is.... complicated :lol
Only for those who keep trying to manufacture it. :cheers:

[RidonKs]

Only for those who keep trying to manufacture it. :cheers:
you're a product of that manufacturing my friend, without it you would be a serf or worse a slave. not to mention a much dumber one.

[RidonKs]

And those who are smarter are able to make more convincing arguments. Those who have media platforms are able to get their speech heard by more people. Those who hold opinions that are already popular are met with less hostility than opinions that aren't.

I don't see how money can be targeted as being different than any other speech advantage.

There is no rational argument for monetary support of political campaigns not being political speech.

I would fully support an amendment for corporations not being able to fund/donate to political campaigns. I don't however see how you possibly make the case that individuals supporting political campaigns isn't the definition of protected political speech.
:facepalm

[kNIOKAS]

And those who are smarter are able to make more convincing arguments. Those who have media platforms are able to get their speech heard by more people. Those who hold opinions that are already popular are met with less hostility than opinions that aren't.
That's something else. Lets come back to this: Do you think it's right that those who have money are more important?



I would fully support an amendment for corporations not being able to fund/donate to political campaigns. I don't however see how you possibly make the case that individuals supporting political campaigns isn't the definition of protected political speech.
Essentially, what is the difference? One entity is registered as a company and another has a passport?

[BRabbiT]

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/15/business/14gravity-web2/14gravity-web2-master675.jpg



Gravity Payment's New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year

Dan Price, CEO of credit card processor Gravity Payments, has earned kudos such as "entrepreneur of the year." Price has told his company's workers that they would all be getting raises over the next 3 years, bringing the minimum salary of every employee to $70,000 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gravity-payments-where-minimun-wage-is-70000-a-year/). That includes even the lowest-paid customer-service reps & clerks.

While large publicly traded companies such as Walmart (WMT) are raising hourly rates for low-paid workers amid a larger discussion about what constitutes a living wage, these have largely been incremental increases of about $1 an hour or a little more. Labor activists at Fight for $15 are pushing for a $15 minimum wage, which is about $31,200 in gross annual income.

At Gravity Payments, the boost represents a 46% jump from the current average annual salary of $48,000. Price told The Times he'll cut his own salary of almost $1 million to $70,000 to help pay for the generous raises.

"The market rate for me as a CEO compared to a regular person is ridiculous, it's absurd," said Price.

CEOs of S&P 500 companies made 354 times the average wages of US workers in 2012, according to the AFL-CIO. Income for America's top earners has surged in recent years -- including for many CEOs. Average workers are struggling with stagnant pay increases, however.

Price said he was inspired after reading an academic article on happiness, which found that increases in income for people who earn less than $70,000 can make a big impact.

Out of Gravity's 120 employees, about 70 will see raises, with 30 eventually doubling their annual salaries. It will use 70-75% of its expected $2.2 million in 2015 profit to help pay for the wages, which will be phased in over the next 3 years

One employee, Hayley Vogt, said she was "completely blown away" by the offer. On her $45,000 annual salary she had been worried about how to pay for rent increases & some medical bills.

"Everyone is talking about this $15 minimum wage in Seattle," she said. "And it's nice to work someplace where someone is actually doing something about it & not just talking about it."




wow. Price is actually eschewing greed?

[BRabbiT]

Is it genius or crazy to introduce a $70,000-a-year minimum wage?


Don’t expect it to spark a trend..... Dan Price will also cut his own $1 million annual salary to $70,000 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-it-genius-or-crazy-to-introduce-a-70000-a-year-minimum-wage-2015-04-14).

“Is anyone else freaking out right now?” he asked his employees. “I’m kind of freaking out.”

Price will use 75-80% of the firm’s projected $2.2 million profit for 2015 to pay the salaries.

“Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone,” the 2010 study on happiness said.

“We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, & that low income is associated both with low life evaluation & low emotional well-being.”

That may be true, but the some studies have found the opposite — the threat of having money taken away — has also improved performance.



“I would not want to live in an economy where all the CEOs were Mother Teresa,” says Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida

Not everyone is a fan of Gravity Payments’ new pay structure. “This is more risky than genius,” says Tim Sackett, president of HRU Technical Resources, an information technology & engineering staffing firm in Lansing, Mich., notwithstanding the resulting publicity from his move or the company’s overnight attractiveness to young, educated job-hunters.

“What happens if they grow from 120 to 1,200? Can you still sustain $70,000 for everyone? What happens if he decides to sell out & a new multinational buys them decides that isn’t their compensation philosophy?”

But other studies show a link between performance & sudden, unexpected pay raises.

Paying above-market wages for a data entry job does not have an effect on effort compared with a lower baseline wage, a 2013 Harvard Business School study found.

“However, structuring a portion of the wage as a clear & unexpected gift by hiring at a given wage, & then offering a raise with no strings attached after the employee has already accepted the contract does lead to persistently higher effort.”



The sweeping pay raise at Gravity comes at a time when employee salaries are barely outpacing inflation, while CEO pay has surged. US wages & salaries rose by roughly 3% for most workers in 2014. That’s up slightly from 2.8% the previous year, & down from 3% in 2013. Consumer price inflation rose an average of 1.6% in 2014, & has been negative to flat so far this year.

Meanwhile, the range between increases for high-performing employees & others is getting wider, as executives & highest-ranking employees are seeing more significant pay raises.

The highest-performing employees received average base pay increases last year of between 4.5-4.8%. What’s more, executives received a 26% average discretionary bonus in 2014, broadly in line with 2013.

The gap in wages is unlikely to change, Sackett says, despite the efforts by small tech companies where demand exceeds supply. In fact, 9 of the top 15 best-paying companies in the US were in the technology sector, according to a study released last week by careers website Glassdoor; 2 were law firms & 4 were consulting firms.

“I applaud Dan Price’s altruism,” Sackett adds. “Most companies still live in the reality of having to move with the market to make their balance sheets balance.”



Dan.Price.:applause:

[Dresta]

A federal minimum wage law has always been a means of discrimination, levied by the central government, often against black people. The law originated out of provincial racism (like many entitlement projects, funnily enough), with whites fearful of being undercut by migrating blacks from the South.

Black youths are disproportionately affected (negatively) by the minimum wage law, which is a great impediment to their acquiring skills. The last time there was parity between white and black youth unemployment was in the 50s, unsurprisingly, after a period of inflation had made the minimum wage redundant. Ever since then there has been a divergence in unemployment rates, especially among young males, with blacks fairing much worse than whites. There is nothing worse for a population than for their young males to have nothing to do with their time, why? Because young males always make trouble when they haven't got responsibilities and things to do.

So the situation has got worse as the amount of overt racial discrimination has gone down, which tells you something (particularly, how destructive the minimum wage law has been, and how its racist outcomes are far worse than any private business refusing to serve or hire a black person). For some reason, the government is allowed to be racist, but business owners no longer have a right to serve whomever the hell they want (what does that say? People no longer see businesses as independent, but as some kind of offshoot of the government, fitted to its demands and standards). Everything needs a license, everything needs the hand of government pushing it along, and thus if anyone wants to get ahead in life they need large amounts of capital, or government contacts - this is for some reason a 'fair world' for everyone.

[kNIOKAS]

A federal minimum wage law has always been a means of discrimination, levied by the central government, often against black people. The law originated out of provincial racism (like many entitlement projects, funnily enough), with whites fearful of being undercut by migrating blacks from the South.

Black youths are disproportionately affected (negatively) by the minimum wage law, which is a great impediment to their acquiring skills. The last time there was parity between white and black youth unemployment was in the 50s, unsurprisingly, after a period of inflation had made the minimum wage redundant. Ever since then there has been a divergence in unemployment rates, especially among young males, with blacks fairing much worse than whites. There is nothing worse for a population than for their young males to have nothing to do with their time, why? Because young males always make trouble when they haven't got responsibilities and things to do.

So the situation has got worse as the amount of overt racial discrimination has gone down, which tells you something (particularly, how destructive the minimum wage law has been, and how its racist outcomes are far worse than any private business refusing to serve or hire a black person). For some reason, the government is allowed to be racist, but business owners no longer have a right to serve whomever the hell they want (what does that say? People no longer see businesses as independent, but as some kind of offshoot of the government, fitted to its demands and standards). Everything needs a license, everything needs the hand of government pushing it along, and thus if anyone wants to get ahead in life they need large amounts of capital, or government contacts - this is for some reason a 'fair world' for everyone.
Just shut up, silly. You don't know what you're rambling about. Minimum wage is now racist? What a comedy.:hammerhead:

[Dresta]

Just shut up, silly. You don't know what you're rambling about. Minimum wage is now racist? What a comedy.:hammerhead:
No, it's a fact, and you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know his history. The first national minimum wage law in the US was the Davis-Bacon Act, and it was overtly racist. If it was racist in the first place, then why exactly would it be less so now? Just because you and Americans have forgotten the reason behind something, doesn't mean the effects aren't still there (take a quick look and black youth unemployment figures why don't you - much worse than the 50s!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism

I don't know why you so often run your mouth about America when you know literally nothing of its history - you just have the typical arrogant, ignorant and conceited view that stupid and insecure Europeans have about America and Americans (i.e. dat dey is stupid and backwards and have guns and stuff and we are so clever and sophisticated and European, etc.). Needless to say these people, in their interests and culture, are actually American to the bone :roll: - this is some unusual form of masochistic self-hatred.

[BRabbiT]

A federal minimum wage law has always been a means of discrimination, levied by the central government, often against black people.

The law originated out of provincial racism....


a minimum wage may not be given w/the best of intentions, fine.

most corporations must still be mandated to treat workers fairly, however, imho.

basic rights (e.g., minimum wage, 8-12 hour days, lunch breaks) were not traditionally provided.


Price may not have the best of intentions, & may simply be setting a high minimum salary for PR reasons.

i still applaud it, vs. other corporations who squeeze employees like oranges, & pay unethically low wages just because they can.

[ILLsmak]

they're ****ing people with non-full time shit so what does the minimum wage matter?

I think the idea would be to attempt to offer full time employment when possible, then in the jobs that people don't want for large hours (students, etc) would be on a totally different pay scale. It's kind of like that except... some people may want to be working full time at McDonalds or Wal-Mart without being a manager.

It gets people more jobs to keep everyone on low hours no matter what they want, but is that better? This whole thing is really complicated. It's not just more money is better. It's a core issue that starts with education.

If you're not legit retarded (and I'm sorry if people are.) That is... if your IQ is above 80 or so, you should have the skills to get plenty of jobs in America. If you don't have them, that is a failure of the system.

Once they can get that taken care of, they will have the pick of people who actually want to work and stop employing all of these dead weight people. Which, of course, sounds bogus as **** but it's true. The whole country is going down the drain in some part due to our inept work force.

Giving people more money sounds good, and it's probably within everyone's means ( at least the larger corporations) to give it, but it doesn't solve anything.

-Smak

[Blue&Orange]

"The market rate for me as a CEO compared to a regular person is ridiculous, it's absurd," said Price.
off course that is. Like it's even more ridiculous that 80 people hold half the world wealth. But off course those 80 people are more bright, more hard working, more competent that half the world because capitalism is such a beautiful thing.


In the U.S., the average CEO earns more than 350 times what the average worker does.
pretty sure they are 350 times more smart and competent and hardworking that those average workers, capitalim works.

Guess what, the banks and investment firms that cause the 2008 world financial crisis and spread misery throughout the world, because of malpractice, corruption and lack of regulation, 5 years ahead are now 5 times more rich.

:applause:

That's why right wingers and the dumbest mutha****ers on the top of the planet, they basically vote to become poor and live in misery, because that's right idiots, they are coming for you too, sooner or later.

The worse is that most are already poor, they are just losers with a sense of superiority.

[NumberSix]

off course that is. Like it's even more ridiculous that 80 people hold half the world wealth. But off course those 80 people are more bright, more hard working, more competent that half the world because capitalism is such a beautiful thing.
Wealth isn't like land. There is a fixed amount of land. For 1 piece of land to grow, another has to shrink. Wealth grows or shrinks independently. You creating wealth doesn't take mine away.

[kNIOKAS]

No, it's a fact, and you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know his history. The first national minimum wage law in the US was the Davis-Bacon Act, and it was overtly racist. If it was racist in the first place, then why exactly would it be less so now? Just because you and Americans have forgotten the reason behind something, doesn't mean the effects aren't still there (take a quick look and black youth unemployment figures why don't you - much worse than the 50s!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism

I don't know why you so often run your mouth about America when you know literally nothing of its history - you just have the typical arrogant, ignorant and conceited view that stupid and insecure Europeans have about America and Americans (i.e. dat dey is stupid and backwards and have guns and stuff and we are so clever and sophisticated and European, etc.). Needless to say these people, in their interests and culture, are actually American to the bone :roll: - this is some unusual form of masochistic self-hatred.
You know tons of self-hatred. A despicable scum that you are.


Wealth isn't like land. There is a fixed amount of land. For 1 piece of land to grow, another has to shrink. Wealth grows or shrinks independently. You creating wealth doesn't take mine away.
Except it does. You're utterly stupid.

[nathanjizzle]

No math skillz.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tY-7Dg5Kqs

explain how he didnt have math skills? the 5 dollar deals are a preset button, which was preset to 5.40, and there is a tax button, which would add tax. and like he said, he cant change the prices, because its preset in the computer. nor is he in authority to exclude charges on a meal. thats just failure of you actually thinking before judging, which is to no surprise.

[NumberSix]

Except it does. You're utterly stupid.
I'll make this easier to understand.

Let's say both of us are farmers. We both have the same amount of land. We both grow corn.

Now, what is wealth? In simplest terms, it's what you posses that is of value, weather it's money, property, intellectual property, etc..

To us farmers, the wealth that we create is obvious. It's our corn crops. The amount of wealth we create is basically up to ourselves. Work hard, grow more corn. Work less hard, grow less corn.

If I work a lot harder than you and I grow 4 times as much corn as you do, I'm not taking anything away from you. I'm creating my own wealth. You can work just as hard and grow just as much if you choose. I'm not stopping you from growing your wealth, I'm not not taking corn away from you. But you would like to believe that because I have so much more corn than you do, that I must have taken corn that should have been yours.

[kNIOKAS]

I'll make this easier to understand.

Let's say both of us are farmers. We both have the same amount of land. We both grow corn.

Now, what is wealth? In simplest terms, it's what you posses that is of value, weather it's money, property, intellectual property, etc..

To us farmers, the wealth that we create is obvious. It's our corn crops. The amount of wealth we create is basically up to ourselves. Work hard, grow more corn. Work less hard, grow less corn.

If I work a lot harder than you and I grow 4 times as much corn as you do, I'm not taking anything away from you. I'm creating my own wealth. You can work just as hard and grow just as much if you choose. I'm not stopping you from growing your wealth, I'm not not taking corn away from you. But you would like to believe that because I have so much more corn than you do, that I must have taken corn that should have been yours.
Your delusion was apparent before, you didn't really need to make a fool of yourself again.

Rich is getting richer, poor is getting poorer, yet one guy having wealth and lobbying for his interests, bribing the officials and buying out competing business does not take away from the wealth of others. Yup.

[NumberSix]

Your delusion was apparent before, you didn't really need to make a fool of yourself again.

Rich is getting richer, poor is getting poorer, yet one guy having wealth and lobbying for his interests, bribing the officials and buying out competing business does not take away from the wealth of others. Yup.
You're not talking about wealth creation here, you're talking about market rigging. I don't think any sane person alive believes market rigging is ok. That is exactly why the government should not have to ability to interfere in the market.

When government has the ability to "regulate" the market, it will ALWAYS end up partnering up with big business and skewing the rules of the market to favor the interests of the big corporations, not the consumers or the competitors.

[kNIOKAS]

You're not talking about wealth creation here, you're talking about market rigging. I don't think any sane person alive believes market rigging is ok. That is exactly why the government should not have to ability to interfere in the market.

When government has the ability to "regulate" the market, it will ALWAYS end up partnering up with big business and skewing the rules of the market to favor the interests of the big corporations, not the consumers or the competitors.
Wealth is created by manipulating numbers in virtual bank accounts, not by raising corns. You're terribly out of date.

What if government didn't have the ability to regulate the market? The big business would always outcompete the small business by dumping the prices, buying off their competitors or flat out gunning them down, like they do in Mexico.

[falc39]

Price floors and ceilings have been shown to be ineffective and even backfire from their intended purpose.

[kNIOKAS]

Price floors and ceilings have been shown to be ineffective and even backfire from their intended purpose.
Elaborate on the purpose in mind and provide examples, please.