Higher Minimum Wages

Heineken Helen

gue_barium wrote:

Rant of the Year! You go, Helen!

Thank you . It's just quite obvious that some people here are in cushy little jobs and are completely against ANY talk of 'sharing the wealth'... fuck the poor people, it's their own fault they are where they are :mad: . Maybe so, or maybe it's because of the greedy rich people who do everything they can to KEEP the poor people where they are. Ireland's not so bad cos we have free education but having seen some of the fees for third level education in the states :eek: that argument just does not hold up. Everyone does NOT have an equal chance :mad:

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Well you constantly insist that people should be paid in accordance with their abilities and their worth to the company. But I'm pointing out that in one of those crappy pay jobs, it doesn't matter HOW hard you work or how loyal you are to the company, because basically you're worthless and completely replaceable to them.

You're attempting to link "abilities and worth to the company" with "hard work and loyalty". The link between those thing is not universal. Just because you're loyal and work hard doesn't mean that you have ability or that you have any worth to the company beyond a meager salary.

As for your second paragraph... it's the people who perform the physically demanding jobs who keep the world ticking over... the CEO's we CAN actually do without. If everything were to go full circle for whatever reason and we end up being back to basics... we're going to be depending on the 'muscle' to survive.

Hehe....if you want to "depend on muscle to survive", I'd invite you to go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, or any other place on this Earth where muscle defines an economy.

A modern economy is driven by minds, not muscles, HH. Muscles can move and weld steel together, but it takes a mind to give it the purpose of an automobile. Muscles can move and stack blocks, but it takes a mind to give it the purpose of a skyscraper. Muscles can do many things that would have absolutely no value to you absent the mind that gives those muscles purpose and reason.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

You're attempting to link "abilities and worth to the company" with "hard work and loyalty". The link between those thing is not universal. Just because you're loyal and work hard doesn't mean that you have ability or that you have any worth to the company beyond a meager salary.

So why do you keep saying otherwise? That's exactly what I'm pointing out in response to how you always say that you define your own minimum wage... well, not unless you have the means to do so... which kinda defeats the purpose.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....if you want to "depend on muscle to survive", I'd invite you to go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, or any other place on this Earth where muscle defines an economy

A modern economy is driven by minds, not muscles, HH. Muscles can move and weld steel together, but it takes a mind to give it the purpose of an automobile. Muscles can move and stack blocks, but it takes a mind to give it the purpose of a skyscraper. Muscles can do many things that would have absolutely no value to you absent the mind that gives those muscles purpose and reason.

Hmm... so do you think all the minds are isolated in the rich countries? I'm sure I don't need to dig up statistics to tell you that you're completely wrong... and are you saying there's no muscle in the rich countries? And I don't necessarily think a skyscraper is the work of genius... anyone can build big. Or a car.. see how THEY'RE ruining the world.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Thank you . It's just quite obvious that some people here are in cushy little jobs and are completely against ANY talk of 'sharing the wealth'... fuck the poor people, it's their own fault they are where they are :mad: . Maybe so, or maybe it's because of the greedy rich people who do everything they can to KEEP the poor people where they are. Ireland's not so bad cos we have free education but having seen some of the fees for third level education in the states :eek: that argument just does not hold up. Everyone does NOT have an equal chance :mad:

Yeah, fuck those people who have doubled the life expectancy of nearly everyone, fuck those people who have put air conditioners and automobiles in the hands of the poor, fuck those people who have given the poor jobs and opportunities to earn their way in life, rather than mooch it or leech it. Fuck those who give you a reason to educate people in the first place.

Fuck those greedy bastards....now give me what's mine??? Nice.

Perhaps we should all learn from the ancient Egyptians. Let's have a muscle economy wherein we all just stack blocks on top of each other until we have someplace nice to be when we're dead.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

So why do you keep saying otherwise? That's exactly what I'm pointing out in response to how you always say that you define your own minimum wage... well, not unless you have the means to do so... which kinda defeats the purpose.

You don't get paid for "hard work and loyalty". You get paid for valuable labor. It's not a bad thing that a person who expends the utmost of energy but produces the minimal amount of value gets paid a small wage. It makes perfect sense.

Your standard for labor is "hard work and loyalty". That's not my standard. My standard for labor is the value of what comes out of it. Do you understand?

Hmm... so do you think all the minds are isolated in the rich countries?

No. Many of the minds in those countries come to ours. Many that stay are destroyed by the men of muscle in the forms of governments and militias.

I'm sure I don't need to dig up statistics to tell you that you're completely wrong... and are you saying there's no muscle in the rich countries? And I don't necessarily think a skyscraper is the work of genius... anyone can build big.

There is plenty of muscle in rich countries. The dominant form of muscle in rich countries comes in the forms of machines, not people. And if you don't think skyscrapers and automobiles and electricity are "genius", that's just fine by me. Your dollars speak otherwise, as does your way of life.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah, fuck those people who have doubled the life expectancy of nearly everyone, fuck those people who have put air conditioners and automobiles in the hands of the poor, fuck those people who have given the poor jobs and opportunities to earn their way in life, rather than mooch it or leech it. Fuck those who give you a reason to educate people in the first place.

Fuck those greedy bastards....now give me what's mine??? Nice..

Wow, you and I have quite a different view of CEO's don't we? Wonder why that is . You seem to view them as... almost missionaries :eek: . Interesting outlook.

And I speak on behalf of others... I get by just fine thank you and have never had to leech of anybody, even my parents.

farfromglorified wrote:

Perhaps we should all learn from the ancient Egyptians. Let's have a muscle economy wherein we all just stack blocks on top of each other until we have someplace nice to be when we're dead.

Didn't the Egyptians pretty much rule the world at the time? Sometimes I think they were much more advanced than we are today. We just have a different outlook on life... I don't see concrete and carbon emissions as the way forward! Probably ironic considering my job but I do recognise the irony.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

You don't get paid for "hard work and loyalty". You get paid for valuable labor. It's not a bad thing that a person who expends the utmost of energy but produces the minimal amount of value gets paid a small wage. It makes perfect sense.

Your standard for labor is "hard work and loyalty". That's not my standard. My standard for labor is the value of what comes out of it. Do you understand?.

Thank you for finally admitting that you cannot see how we're all a team. Can you recognise that we wouldn't be able to keep going without the 'least valuable' members of society.

farfromglorified wrote:

No. Many of the minds in those countries come to ours. Many that stay are destroyed by the men of muscle in the forms of governments and militias.

There is plenty of muscle in rich countries. The dominant form of muscle in rich countries comes in the forms of machines, not people. And if you don't think skyscrapers and automobiles and electricity are "genius", that's just fine by me. Your dollars speak otherwise, as does your way of life.

See you're missing out on one valuable thing. 'Wealth' is not just financial... some people are not born with the same opportunities as you or I simply because of their environmental surroundings.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Wow, you and I have quite a different view of CEO's don't we? Wonder why that is . You seem to view them as... almost missionaries :eek: . Interesting outlook.

And I speak on behalf of others... I get by just fine thank you and have never had to leech of anybody, even my parents.

I'm not just talking about "CEO's". I'm talking about anyone who has ever given you something with their mind that made your life easier and/or better.

Didn't the Egyptians pretty much rule the world at the time? Sometimes I think they were much more advanced than we are today. We just have a different outlook on life... I don't see concrete and carbon emissions as the way forward! Probably ironic considering my job but I do recognise the irony.

"Concrete and carbon emissions" are not the only way to build an advanced society. The true irony is that the muscles of government will not solve those things -- the people that give you better options will.

And if you think the Egyptians were "much more advanced than we are today", I'd invite you to go live in a shack in the desert and spend 12 hours a day doing hard manual labor, sometimes against your will. See how well that works out for you.

Pacomc79

callen wrote:

...soo what makes you think it will cause inflation....I highly doubt it. If you look at consumer prices..energy, transportation what ever....giving the folks that are at minimum wage a boost it won't correlate to a one to one increase in all their goods..as everyone is not at minimum wage. Soooooo if you feel prices will go up in direct relation then your making a pretty dumb statement. Your not as smart as you think you are. No offense.

actually, the people making 10 dollars an hour will also require a raise as they are then making 10 dollars an hour, if their job was worth more when the minimum is lower, it's worth more now.... and so on and so forth. That's how it works. That's how Unions negociate wages. Rasing the minimum wage has more to do with Unions and their contracts than anything else.

The ultimate result is the increase of work for people at the bottom and the reduction of positions, so many of the positions that people use to gain experience are sacrificed so a smaller number of people can make a higher wage and subsequently be forced to do more, which may also have the effect of more unskilled laborers being unemployeed or working for temp agencies (or getting paid illegally under the table). Many employers will simply discontinue many of their low wage positions and force the higher paid positions to pick up the slack. They do it all the time as it is now. Many companies run as thin as possible until something forces them to hire more people.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Thank you for finally admitting that you cannot see how we're all a team.

Hehe...if "we're all a team", then why does it matter what these individuals are making?

No, we're not all a team. I'm not your teammate. I'm not George Bush's teammate. I'm not Menu Food's teammate. I'm not Louis Farrakhan's teammate. There are plenty of people who aren't my "teammate".

Can you recognise that we wouldn't be able to keep going without the 'least valuable' members of society.

That depends on what you mean. We certainly could "keep going" without minimum wage workers. Our lives would be adversely affected, but not to any massive extent.

See you're missing out on one valuable thing. 'Wealth' is not just financial... some people are not born with the same opportunities as you or I simply because of their environmental surroundings.

I never said people were born with the same opportunities as you or I. You and I weren't born with the same opportunities as each other.

However, all those people I mentioned have the opportunity to use their minds and to reject the worship of muscle. They may never be "CEOs", but their lives will be much better for it.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not just talking about "CEO's". I'm talking about anyone who has ever given you something with their mind that made your life easier and/or better..

well I'm NOT talking about those people... cos they're generally not for holding back the poor people! I'm talking about those who fight every single attempt to spread out the wealth, they're the ones I have a problem with... cos they're generally the people who won't miss it. Just cos one is intelligent does not necessarily mean that one is entitled to be more wealthy than 'stupid yet strong' people and SHOULD not. You seem to see intelligence as a thing that makes you better than others though? Sure, intelligence is a great thing BUT isn't that already a wealth? Why then should you be more entitled to every kind?

farfromglorified wrote:

"Concrete and carbon emissions" are not the only way to build an advanced society. The true irony is that the muscles of government will not solve those things -- the people that give you better options will.

well then, why is the terminator leading the American mission to be environmentally friendly? Oh yes, the people that give us better options WILL indeed work hard to wipe out the damage caused by the other wonderful things they gave us :rolleyes:

farfromglorified wrote:

And if you think the Egyptians were "much more advanced than we are today", I'd invite you to go live in a shack in the desert and spend 12 hours a day doing hard manual labor, sometimes against your will. See how well that works out for you.

See how YOU'D like it. I never said I'd LIKE a physically demanding job but I just think you can be quite patronising towards those who HAVE no other option... so yeh, you give it a go and then come back and argue what you're worth.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...if "we're all a team", then why does it matter what these individuals are making?

No, we're not all a team. I'm not your teammate. I'm not George Bush's teammate. I'm not Menu Food's teammate. I'm not Louis Farrakhan's teammate. There are plenty of people who aren't my "teammate".



That depends on what you mean. We certainly could "keep going" without minimum wage workers. Our lives would be adversely affected, but not to any massive extent.

well then.. that pretty much says it all about the point of arguing anything with you :eek: . You just keep on working on your own then and see how far you get.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

well I'm NOT talking about those people... cos they're generally not for holding back the poor people! I'm talking about those who fight every single attempt to spread out the wealth, they're the ones I have a problem with... cos they're generally the people who won't miss it. Just cos one is intelligent does not necessarily mean that one is entitled to be more wealthy than 'stupid yet strong' people and SHOULD not. You seem to see intelligence as a thing that makes you better than others though? Sure, intelligence is a great thing BUT isn't that already a wealth? Why then should you be more entitled to every kind?

Way to make massive generalizations on CEOs. Not all CEOs are "holding back the poor". And just because you don't support "spreading the wealth" doesn't mean you're holding back anyone. Wealth is not a static thing. It is made. I can't stop you from making wealth unless I forcibly stop you from thinking or acting.

Intelligence does make me "better" than some others. Those who have more intelligence than I do are "better" than me. And intelligence is wealth. It entitles me to no other wealth until someone exchanges their wealth for my intelligence. Do you understand that? I'm not talking about anyone, poor or CEO, being "entitled" to anything else owned by another.

well then, why is the terminator leading the American mission to be environmentally friendly? Oh yes, the people that give us better options WILL indeed work hard to wipe out the damage caused by the other wonderful things they gave us :rolleyes:

Yes, they will. What's so wrong about this?

See how YOU'D like it. I never said I'd LIKE a physically demanding job but I just think you can be quite patronising towards those who HAVE no other option... so yeh, you give it a go and then come back and argue what you're worth.

The ancient egyptians did have "other options". Modern egyptians prove that by not living in the same manner. If you want to grasp onto this predestination stick, help yourself. But if that's the case, none of this matters because then things now are exactly as they should be as well.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

well then.. that pretty much says it all about the point of arguing anything with you :eek: . You just keep on working on your own then and see how far you get.

"Working on my own" is not what I'm talking about, HH. What I'm talking about is working with whom I please, and vice versa. Slavery isn't my bag.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Intelligence does make me "better" than some others. Those who have more intelligence than I do are "better" than me.

Intelligence is one thing. And it's value is dependent on many, many factors. A higher intelligence is not guaranteed self-evidently "better".

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Intelligence is one thing. And it's value is dependent on many, many factors. A higher intelligence is not guaranteed self-evidently "better".

Agreed. Intelligence is not the only possible standard for assessing the value of another. I didn't mean "better" as some all-encompassing term.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Agreed. Intelligence is not the only possible standard for assessing the value of another. I didn't mean "better" as some all-encompassing term.

With each "intelligence" itself, there can be huge variations on how it plays out in the environment, and within the indivdual. One can be highly intelligent and spend their life in jail, or being mentally ill. My brother, once a physics student in university currently is unable to work, due to schizophrenia. As well, a CEO can possess average intelligence and have great interpersonal and life skills, etc. I personally believe George Bush is of startlingly average intelligence (but therefore has resonated with the 'norm'--and I also see him as having a non-visionary type of intelligence, unlike most people on this board who couldn't get elected if their lives depended on it) I know many stunningly intelligent people who are on the fringes of society, for example, driving cabs, or working temporary jobs. All humans have huge depths of value, whether they are appreciated in society based on our norms of what is valued at this time.

angelica

One more thing...my brother who has had schizophrenia for over 10 years, and who is unable to work in the traditional sense because the stress causes him to hallucinate and become delusional, the one who once dreamed of being an astrophysicist, also has the same personality type as Ayn Rand and supposedly Newton, among others....and if you recall farfromglorified, you and I have discussed the possibility of you being of that type, as well.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

With each "intelligence" itself, there can be huge variations on how it plays out in the environment, and within the indivdual. One can be highly intelligent and spend their life in jail, or being mentally ill. My brother, once a physics student in university currently is unable to work, due to schizophrenia. As well, a CEO can possess average intelligence and have great interpersonal and life skills, etc. I personally believe George Bush is of startlingly average intelligence (but therefore has resonated with the 'norm'--and I also see him as having a non-visionary type of intelligence, unlike most people on this board who couldn't get elected if their lives depended on it) I know many stunningly intelligent people who are on the fringes of society, for example, driving cabs, or working temporary jobs. All humans have huge depths of value, whether they are appreciated in society based on our norms of what is valued at this time.

I agree with this as well. "Intelligence" is a multi-faceted thing and it not some guarantee of wealth, nor should it be. I didn't bring up "intelligence" here, I brought up the mind, and there's a differentiation there that accounts for other factors you mention above. Anyway, specific types of intelligence that produce ideas and products of value to others are what should "guarantee" wealth, so long as those others are actually willing to exchange for it.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I agree with this as well. "Intelligence" is a multi-faceted thing and it not some guarantee of wealth, nor should it be. I didn't bring up "intelligence" here, I brought up the mind, and there's a differentiation there that accounts for other factors you mention above. Anyway, specific types of intelligence that produce ideas and products of value to others are what should "guarantee" wealth, so long as those others are actually willing to exchange for it.

The beauty of the myers briggs personality typing is that is points to the value of what each individual brings to the table. There is distinct, absolute, undeniable value in physical labour as well. My dad worked a physical labour job until he retired. He's not a theoretical type of guy and believed he was not smart, but he's a detail oriented and highly creative person. So while his brother became a respected university professor, my dad worked at a factory to support his seven kids. His true dream, that he pursued alongside his "survival" job was being a musician. My parents band played in bars essentially every weekend of my childhood. My dad self-produced and financed the band's album in the 70's (by selling his beloved record collection of 78s). Later on, some other dude released an album of songs by my dad. And as I've told you privately before, a few years back, one of the members of Depeche Mode recorded one of my 70-something year old dad's songs, on a solo release including songs also written by Lou Reed, David Bowie and Iggy Pop. Once my dad was old enough to realize the silliness of the social judgments and value that was put on him as a factory worker (minimizing his actual value) including by himself, he began to truly outlet his purpose and has since gone on to become one of Canada's most well known record dealers/collectors, and was touted on the CBC as contributing more to the Canadian country music scene than any other musician. I know you don't dispute that people can do such things, and I have no doubt you would encourage them to. The thing is, there are reasons people are working labour jobs, and are not opening to their actual potential and contributing what you or others consider "value". And those reasons are both individual and societal. It's another side of the coin of what you argue in these debates, imo.