Higher Minimum Wages

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

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.

Slow down...you've made a statement that implies a complete misrepresentation of what I've said here:

"There is distinct, absolute, undeniable value in physical labour as well."

Are you implying that I don't think physical labor has a "distinct, absolute, undeniable" value?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Slow down...you've made a statement that implies a complete misrepresentation of what I've said here:

"There is distinct, absolute, undeniable value in physical labour as well."

Are you implying that I don't think physical labor has a "distinct, absolute, undeniable" value?

Do you agree that value is arbitrary? Do you agree that my dad's contribution to his employer down at the old plant was as valuable as that of the CEO at the corporation? I understand value is "defined" by the market, but that is one kind of value, and imo not an actual full representation of value. I have the impression that your term for value in this context is purely in regards to economics, whereas that is not representative of the full situation and the full values involved, but instead an aspect of it. There are very real human aspects that your opponents in such debates present as a piece that it seems you are less willing to factor in. While we are discussing economics, we are also discussing numerous other factors that must be considered and dealt with in order to be realistic. Hence why our systems balance out societal aspects as well, in order to be more efficient. It may be beyond the economics, itself, but that's because it IS beyond the economics itself.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Do you agree that value is arbitrary?

No. It's directly linked to the value others get out of the output of said labor.

Do you agree that my dad's contribution to his employer down at the old plant was as valuable as that of the CEO at the corporation?

I can't answer that question, not knowing your dad's contribution, the CEO's contribution, the purpose of the corporation or the values of its customers and shareholders. Mere existence doesn't imply value. Simply filling a role, be it the CEO's or the janitor's, doesn't imply value.

I understand value is "defined" by the market, but that is one kind of value, and imo not an actual full representation of value. I have the impression that your term for value in this context is purely in regards to economics, whereas that is not representative of the full situation and the full values involved, but instead an aspect of it.

Correct. I'm speaking economics here, not some larger concept of "human value".

There are very real human aspects that your opponents in such debates present as a piece that it seems you are less willing to factor in. While we are discussing economics, we are also discussing numerous other factors that must be considered and dealt with in order to be realistic. Hence why our systems balance out societal aspects as well, in order to be more efficient. It may be beyond the economics, itself, but that's because it IS beyond the economics itself.

See, these "real human aspects" certainly exist but it sounds absolutely ridiculous to bring them into a conversation about the minimum wage. So long as were discussing payment, we're talking economics. If you want to step out of the economic constraints of the discussion, you'll have to step out of the constraints of payment as well.

Do you understand what this means? For example, people always want to fall into discussions of "team" and "society" and "altruism" and all these other wonderful things to imply somehow that minimum wage workers are entitled to more at the sacrifice of others. Unfortunately, that doesn't wash because one could easily use the very same arguments to say that minimum wage workers are entitled to less and thereby sacrifice further to others. In other words, if all this becomes about massive generalizations and social aspects wherein people have arbitrary obligations to one another, all bets are off. At that point, people only have what someone allows them to have, and that can work in all directions.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Correct. I'm speaking economics here, not some larger concept of "human value".

See, these "real human aspects" certainly exist but it sounds absolutely ridiculous to bring them into a conversation about the minimum wage. So long as were discussing payment, we're talking economics. If you want to step out of the economic constraints of the discussion, you'll have to step out of the constraints of payment as well.

This is the crux of it between you and I and is representative of our different worldviews, so I will leave it at that. However that does not mean that the other side of the coin you are on does not exist.

desandrews

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:

I'm living proof that this is not the case. Poor kid, parents never went beyond high school. They were bankrupt, literally, when I was 12, divorced by the time I was 15. Some months the electricity went out because my mom couldn't pay the bill. My dad, the genious that he is, took a lower paying job so his child support payments would be lower. You know, all that good stuff. However, since I was poor, I qualified for every grant and loan you can think of. Not enough to go to a prestigious school or one anyone's probably even heard of, but enough to go to a modest school that gave me a good education. I worked hard to get a good degree (not something unmarketable like psychology, sociology or english :-)) and now I work for a large corporation making more money than I'd ever dreamed of. Not enough to make me rich by any means, but more money that I absolutely need to survive. Who cares if everybody doesn't have an EQUAL chance, the point is, they have a chance and if they want to, they can take advantage of it.

angelica

desandrews wrote:

I'm living proof that this is not the case. Poor kid, parents never went beyond high school. They were bankrupt, literally, when I was 12, divorced by the time I was 15. Some months the electricity went out because my mom couldn't pay the bill. My dad, the genious that he is, took a lower paying job so his child support payments would be lower. You know, all that good stuff. However, since I was poor, I qualified for every grant and loan you can think of. Not enough to go to a prestigious school or one anyone's probably even heard of, but enough to go to a modest school that gave me a good education. I worked hard to get a good degree (not something unmarketable like psychology, sociology or english :-)) and now I work for a large corporation making more money than I'd ever dreamed of. Not enough to make me rich by any means, but more money that I absolutely need to survive. Who cares if everybody doesn't have an EQUAL chance, the point is, they have a chance and if they want to, they can take advantage of it.

That lack of sociology and psychology degree is evident. You don't seem to understand the piece one's psyche or their sociological influences bring to whether they are empowered to take advantage of opportunities.

desandrews

angelica wrote:

That lack of sociology and psychology degree is evident. You don't seem to understand the piece one's psyche or their sociological influences bring to whether they are empowered to take advantage of opportunities.

Maybe that was partially my point, my psyche was damaged, I had poor sociological influences, all that stuff. Didn't matter though, you can't succumb to that.

As Andre 3000 said, humble as a mumble in the jungle of shouts and screams, that's the way the cracker crumbles, so I guess I've got to re-route my dreams.

hippiemom

desandrews wrote:

Maybe that was partially my point, my psyche was damaged, I had poor sociological influences, all that stuff. Didn't matter though, you can't succumb to that.

As Andre 3000 said, humble as a mumble in the jungle of shouts and screams, that's the way the cracker crumbles, so I guess I've got to re-route my dreams.

You also have what appears to be a reasonably high degree of intelligence, as well as at least some talent for business, which are not things equally possessed by all people.

I won't even go into the reasons why different people respond differently to poor influences, because angelica's probably typing an outstanding post on that topic right now.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

You also have what appears to be a reasonably high degree of intelligence, as well as at least some talent for business, which are not things equally possessed by all people.

I won't even go into the reasons why different people respond differently to poor influences, because angelica's probably typing an outstanding post on that topic right now.

I'm a firm believer that everyone has a talent that they can exploit for decent profit while enjoying what they do. And at a certain point in your life you have to stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop blaming the lack of control in your life on others and/or circumstances and step up to the plate and take control of your life.

Are we all equally equiped to do this? No. Do we all have to do this regardless of situation? You bet if you want to be happy.

I see people all the time who are afraid to succeed or afraid to demand respect for their abilities. Hell, I'm that person sometimes too. But we will never be able to engineer a society that does this for you. We all have no choice but to step up to the plate and do it ourselves. We can't choose our parents but we do choose our friends. Choose wisely, choose people who'll suupport your dreams. It's unfair that some people may never learn this but it's not something that society or school can really teach either. You have to learn this for yourself.

angelica

desandrews wrote:

Maybe that was partially my point, my psyche was damaged, I had poor sociological influences, all that stuff. Didn't matter though, you can't succumb to that.

I'm the first person to believe in empowering others, paving the way, and showing them it can be done. At the same time, I also acknowledge, understand and appreciate the gravity of why people succumb to "that" and cannot find the way as you do. I wonder if you understand those variables.

As Andre 3000 said, humble as a mumble in the jungle of shouts and screams, that's the way the cracker crumbles, so I guess I've got to re-route my dreams.

And what do you tell those who are unable to succeed due to psychological and environmental factors?

angelica

hippiemom wrote:

You also have what appears to be a reasonably high degree of intelligence, as well as at least some talent for business, which are not things equally possessed by all people.

I won't even go into the reasons why different people respond differently to poor influences, because angelica's probably typing an outstanding post on that topic right now.

sorry, I was otherwise occupied.

farfromglorified

surferdude wrote:

I'm a firm believer that everyone has a talent that they can exploit for decent profit while enjoying what they do. And at a certain point in your life you have to stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop blaming the lack of control in your life on others and/or circumstances and step up to the plate and take control of your life.

Are we all equally equiped to do this? No. Do we all have to do this regardless of situation? You bet if you want to be happy.

I see people all the time who are afraid to succeed or afraid to demand respect for their abilities. Hell, I'm that person sometimes too. But we will never be able to engineer a society that does this for you. We all have no choice but to step up to the plate and do it ourselves. We can't choose our parents but we do choose our friends. Choose wisely, choose people who'll suupport your dreams. It's unfair that some people may never learn this but it's not something that society or school can really teach either. You have to learn this for yourself.

I certainly agree with your post here, except for one statement:

"it's not something that society or school can really teach either"

Society and school certainly can teach these things. But it can't do that by pretending they don't exist.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

I'm a firm believer that everyone has a talent that they can exploit for decent profit while enjoying what they do. And at a certain point in your life you have to stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop blaming the lack of control in your life on others and/or circumstances and step up to the plate and take control of your life.

Are we all equally equiped to do this? No. Do we all have to do this regardless of situation? You bet if you want to be happy.

I see people all the time who are afraid to succeed or afraid to demand respect for their abilities. Hell, I'm that person sometimes too. But we will never be able to engineer a society that does this for you. We all have no choice but to step up to the plate and do it ourselves. We can't choose our parents but we do choose our friends. Choose wisely, choose people who'll suupport your dreams. It's unfair that some people may never learn this but it's not something that society or school can really teach either. You have to learn this for yourself.

Just like we will 'never' be able to engineer a society to do 'this' for us, we will 'never' be able to engineer the individuals in society to put their chins up and pull themselves up the their bootstraps. So it looks like we'll have to deal with the impasse somehow.

kenny olav

surferdude wrote:

You may see a bit more spending power for about 6 months. After that the wage increase and resulting increase in cost of production will be reflected in just about you buy. Raising minimum wage does not help anyone in the long run. Only getting an education that allows you to work at higher valued jobs will help.

Half the population isn't intelligent enough to get a higher education, so under your plan, they're screwed, even though they may work just as hard as anyone who went to college.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Just like we will 'never' be able to engineer a society to do 'this' for us, we will 'never' be able to engineer the individuals in society to put their chins up and pull themselves up the their bootstraps. So it looks like we'll have to deal with the impasse somehow.

I'm still trying to understand this "impasse"......

farfromglorified

Kenny Olav wrote:

Half the population isn't intelligent enough to get a higher education, so under your plan, they're screwed, even though they may work just as hard as anyone who went to college.

How are people who don't get a higher education "screwed"?

surferdude

angelica wrote:

Just like we will 'never' be able to engineer a society to do 'this' for us, we will 'never' be able to engineer the individuals in society to put their chins up and pull themselves up the their bootstraps. So it looks like we'll have to deal with the impasse somehow.

In the old days families were expected to do this. Now a days there seems to be absolutely zero expectations on families to do anything. Until the day providing as close to the ideal family situation is supported by society this problem will keep getting worse. Society has next to no respect for family or it's role in society. Yet family is the only group able to provide some types of support.

I don't think there's much we can do for those falling through the cracks while being reactive. We already have reactive programs coming at us from every direction. But zero programs to support a proactive approach by defining the ideal family and then halping families get as close to the ideal as possible.

surferdude

Kenny Olav wrote:

Half the population isn't intelligent enough to get a higher education, so under your plan, they're screwed, even though they may work just as hard as anyone who went to college.

How are they screwed? Or do you only equate success with money? Got no university education, no problem. Choose to be the absolute best at the job you have and you will be successful. Most entrepeneurs are not university graduates. Stop fucking feeling sorry for them, start treating them like individuals who are taking an alternate route to success.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm still trying to understand this "impasse"......

Good luck with that!

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

How are they screwed? Or do you only equate success with money? Got no university education, no problem. Choose to be the absolute best at the job you have and you will be successful. Most entrepeneurs are not university graduates. Stop fucking feeling sorry for them, start treating them like individuals who are taking an alternate route to success.

Well, the thread is about wages, so it doesn't seem too out there to be discussing money.

So many places require a college degree for ANY job, even one where it's totally unnecessary. There are jobs where I work that require a 4-year degree, and I guarantee I could get any 12 year-old of average intelligence doing some of these jobs within a week. It's ridiculous, and blocks opportunities for those that don't have the ability or the desire to go to college.