Well the lack of a minimum wage is nothing short of slavery...
The lack of a minimum wage is short of slavery by one very key facet --- forced labor. The objective difference between a slave and an employee is not the amount of money they are paid but rather whether or not the person is working against their will and whether or not the wage they receive was agreed to on their own terms or on someone else's. If I bind you, gag you, drag you off and force you to work in my field against your will and do not let you leave, you are a slave, even if I pay you $40 / hour. If you come to me, ask for a job, and I offer you $4 / hour and you willingly accept and have every opportunity to sever the arrangement at your discretion, you are not a slave.
Everyday in this country and others, many people willingly agree to exchange their labor with another for less than the minimum wage that is set. They do so willingly, and they do so for their own purposes and interests. In your world, those people and their employers are criminals for no other reason than that their mutual agreement fails to meet your standards. Now, who is the slavedriver here?
Student loans are a choice (and a very poor one if you ask me). There are plenty of people who do it without them.
Not all people can do with out them. Not everyone has means of money to pay for college without them. And if you think that putting yourself in debt (at a low interest rate) to get an education in order to better yourself is a poor choice, then I my friend have made a poor choice. And before you go on the tangent about making better grades and getting scholarships, I had plenty of scholarships, but still had to take out loans as well as work to make ends meet.
Cheers,
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
newagehippie -- the post of mine that you responded to was completely facetious. You have every right in the world to make whatever your labor is worth to anyone who would pay the price, regardless of your reasons.
The lack of a minimum wage is short of slavery by one very key facet --- forced labor. The objective difference between a slave and an employee is not the amount of money they are paid but rather whether or not the person is working against their will and whether or not the wage they receive was agreed to on their own terms or on someone else's. If I bind you, gag you, drag you off and force you to work in my field against your will and do not let you leave, you are a slave, even if I pay you $40 / hour. If you come to me, ask for a job, and I offer you $4 / hour and you willingly accept and have every opportunity to sever the arrangement at your discretion, you are not a slave.
Everyday in this country and others, many people willingly agree to exchange their labor with another for less than the minimum wage that is set. They do so willingly, and they do so for their own purposes and interests. In your world, those people and their employers are criminals for no other reason than that their mutual agreement fails to meet your standards. Now, who is the slavedriver here?
Well in this instance it's certainly not ME!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, well let's refer to it as 'sweat shops' rather than 'slave labour'... for an employer to take advantage of a person knowing it's that choice or DIE... well I'm sorry but I'm incapable of understanding that kind of greed. You can explain it to me all you want but I still see it as similar to slavery.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Well in this instance it's certainly not ME!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, well let's refer to it as 'sweat shops' rather than 'slave labour'... for an employer to take advantage of a person knowing it's that choice or DIE... well I'm sorry but I'm incapable of understanding that kind of greed. You can explain it to me all you want but I still see it as similar to slavery.
Ok, this is fair. Thank you for amending the statement.
Sweat shop labor is similar to slavery, particularly since the sweat shop labor is often directly forced labor (making it slavery) or indirectly forced through circumstance (making it quasi-slavery).
I'm not sure why you equate "lack of a minimum wage" with sweat shops though. Removing the minimum wage doesn't give employers a) the right to force people to work in sweat shops or b) force individuals to choose sweat shops.
If, in the United States, the minimum wage was removed, certainly very low wage factories would emerge, particularly in places with high unemployment or low-educated workforces. My basic questions to you would be:
a) Why is this, by default, a bad thing?
b) Why is this, by default, any different than simply pushing those sweat shops overseas, particularly to nations with absolutely no concept of basic human rights?
Furthermore, do you not see the benefit of keeping those jobs in your home country where exposure and oversight of the conditions those workers operate in would be far greater??? We in the West continue to pass more and more legislation "protecting" workers, but at the same time continue to buy more and more products from workers in absolutely squalid conditions. Do such "workers rights" only matter when we can pretend those workers don't exist since they're in another country, rather than in our own backyard?
Ok, this is fair. Thank you for amending the statement.
Sweat shop labor is similar to slavery, particularly since the sweat shop labor is often directly forced labor (making it slavery) or indirectly forced through circumstance (making it quasi-slavery).
I'm not sure why you equate "lack of a minimum wage" with sweat shops though. Removing the minimum wage doesn't give employers a) the right to force people to work in sweat shops or b) force individuals to choose sweat shops.
If, in the United States, the minimum wage was removed, certainly very low wage factories would emerge, particularly in places with high unemployment or low-educated workforces. My basic questions to you would be:
a) Why is this, by default, a bad thing?
b) Why is this, by default, any different than simply pushing those sweat shops overseas, particularly to nations with absolutely no concept of basic human rights?
Furthermore, do you not see the benefit of keeping those jobs in your home country where exposure and oversight of the conditions those workers operate in would be far greater??? We in the West continue to pass more and more legislation "protecting" workers, but at the same time continue to buy more and more products from workers in absolutely squalid conditions. Do such "workers rights" only matter when we can pretend those workers don't exist since they're in another country, rather than in our own backyard?
a. if I need to explain why working conditions being similar to sweat shops is a bad thing, well then there's not much point conversing with you further.
b. You're right, it's absolutely no different at all and you actually raise a good point about keeping this in our own country so we can protect them BUT workers everywhere should be protected... employers only want a profit and generally care little about those who MAKE this profit for them. I try, where I can to only buy Irish products and avoid products made in countries where sweat shops exist.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
a. if I need to explain why working conditions being similar to sweat shops is a bad thing, well then there's not much point conversing with you further.
Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Imagine a low-wage factory where workers are paid, say, $2 / hour but the employer has no right to force people to work there or stay there. Why, by default, is that a bad thing?
b. You're right, it's absolutely no different at all and you actually raise a good point about keeping this in our own country so we can protect them BUT workers everywhere should be protected... employers only want a profit and generally care little about those who MAKE this profit for them. I try, where I can to only buy Irish products and avoid products made in countries where sweat shops exist.
And that's a great choice you're making! I wish more people would make similar choices, but their choices aren't really my business until they start harming me.
See, there's a problem here though. You keep referring to "protecting" workers, and that's quite noble. But you're crossing a line when you start overriding someone's will. You're not protecting someone when you tell them they're not allowed to take the job of their choice, even if that job is low paying menial labor.
Protecting workers' rights means protecting their freedoms of choice first. Once you start violating that, you cannot use the word "protection".
Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Imagine a low-wage factory where workers are paid, say, $2 / hour but the employer has no right to force people to work there or stay there. Why, by default, is that a bad thing?
BECAUSE.. this is usually the ONLY choice, or employers wouldnt' pay so little cos nobody would work for them. If something is the ONLY choice, is it actually a choice at all? Well, a choice usually signifies you have things to choose between, doesn't it?
And that's a great choice you're making! I wish more people would make similar choices, but their choices aren't really my business until they start harming me.
See, there's a problem here though. You keep referring to "protecting" workers, and that's quite noble. But you're crossing a line when you start overriding someone's will. You're not protecting someone when you tell them they're not allowed to take the job of their choice, even if that job is low paying menial labor.
Protecting workers' rights means protecting their freedoms of choice first. Once you start violating that, you cannot use the word "protection".
Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers... NOT the employers.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
BECAUSE.. this is usually the ONLY choice, or employers wouldnt' pay so little cos nobody would work for them. If something is the ONLY choice, is it actually a choice at all? Well, a choice usually signifies you have things to choose between, doesn't it?
Certainly! A choice does signify that. Slavery leaves you no other option. Removing the minimum wage, however, does not limit your options. It only limits your right to force someone else to pay you something greater than your worth to them.
Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers... NOT the employers.
Yes. Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers....NOT harming the employers. Do you not recognize that employers are workers too?
True. Would you like me to do this again under the pretense that I believe government should force American companies to keep jobs here?
If no one is forcing them, what would happen I opened a grocery store right now and paid my workers $4/hour?
Of course. Can I hide behind such an excuse for every crime or misdeed in American history? Or corporate history?
So the lynch mob becomes the ideal? Weren't you just telling me about the violent end-game of anarchy?
You're entirely right -- no one FORCES me to do business here. Are you suggesting that slavery would have been justified if a) the masses wanted it and b) we asked the slaves nicely to come here first?
1. no, my point was you're being ridiculous and not giving a valid and legitimate argument the consideration it deserves. not everyone who thinks progressive taxation is a communist, and you know it. if you dont, im sorry to tell you but senator mccarthy lost power a long time ago buddy. quit the witch-hunts and demonization of everything you disagree with.
2. no, but you CAN hide behind such an excuse for every LAW in the US. what part of my post did you not understand? minimum wage is LAW, not CRIME. if you have a criminal behavior and can muster the support to legalize it (marijuana?), by all means, go for it and i'll have no issue with it. but you've got to do it on the strength of your argument, not by inflaming people's fears of the alternative you don't like. you'd be just as bad as a democrat or a republican
3. a lynch mob, again, is a means of violence, and again, NOT LAW. it is called rule by majority... aka DEMOCRACY. if the majority decides to make something legal or illegal, that is not mob rule, it is democracy. again, quit playing drama queen. i normally respect you, but this new fav tactic of yours is pretty feeble.
4. this is inapplicable. one, i know your income is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans (see how fun hyperbole can be), but there IS a difference between your income being taxed, and somebody's very body being owned by another person. your thinking is purely academic and abstract and not grounded in reality. you're arguing ideology and philosophically on an issue that has to be grounded in the reality of this world. the reality being people are more valuable than any amount of money. your analogies are weak at best. two, the income tax and minimum wage we voted on applies to everyone equally. the people supporting it pay it too, they do not just impose on people they don't like. it goes across the board. if people vote to enslave only people other than them, that is different. now, if we all voted that anyone who gets into a car accident and can't pay the damages has to be someone else's butler for a year (god bless jerry seinfeld), that applies equally to everybody.
Certainly! A choice does signify that. Slavery leaves you no other option. Removing the minimum wage, however, does not limit your options. It only limits your right to force someone else to pay you something greater than your worth to them.
if you weren't worth that much to them, they wouldnt be in the business. the fact that there are still jobs in the US shows that employers find that horribly unjust minimum wage you're crying over is still worth paying for the money they receive.
So if the majority of the people what to cap salaries at $40,000, or better yet set a standard wage which everyone makes at $40,000 you have no problem with that since it is the will of the masses?
pretty much. id oppose such a measure, but if it's what the people want, what am i going to do about it? im free to move and work elsewhere if i dont like it.
pretty much. id oppose such a measure, but if it's what the people want, what am i going to do about it? im free to move and work elsewhere if i dont like it.
So if the majority of people want separate but equal schools and restaurants, that'd be OK with you, too?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
3. a lynch mob, again, is a means of violence, and again, NOT LAW. it is called rule by majority... aka DEMOCRACY. if the majority decides to make something legal or illegal, that is not mob rule, it is democracy.
I think this is where you're tripping up. We are governed by rule of law, not rule of will, whether that will be a monarch's or a mob's. When that democracy does something outside the bounds, it should be reigned in. Government theft of property, income, etc.. shouldn't be tolerated, and certainly shouldn't be excused simply because the majority voted for it. The bill of rights is full of clauses protecting the individual from the gov't and/or mob rule.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
if you weren't worth that much to them, they wouldnt be in the business. the fact that there are still jobs in the US shows that employers find that horribly unjust minimum wage you're crying over is still worth paying for the money they receive.
You're not putting any thought into this. You're suggesting that any job that isn't outsourced must be worth the minimum wage, which is ridiculous. You can't outsource a stockboy. You can't outsource a burger-flipper. Furthermore, if it "must be worth it", why even bother with a minimum wage at all? If the actual value of the labor is equal to or greater than your minimum wage, there would be no reason for the law.
1. no, my point was you're being ridiculous and not giving a valid and legitimate argument the consideration it deserves. not everyone who thinks progressive taxation is a communist, and you know it. if you dont, im sorry to tell you but senator mccarthy lost power a long time ago buddy. quit the witch-hunts and demonization of everything you disagree with.
I haven't accused anyone of being communist just because they support "progressive taxation" or the minimum wage. And I'm not interested in witch-hunts or demonizations.
I only want people to actually understand what they're doing and, in the process, perhaps make them think about the reprecussions.
2. no, but you CAN hide behind such an excuse for every LAW in the US. what part of my post did you not understand? minimum wage is LAW, not CRIME. if you have a criminal behavior and can muster the support to legalize it (marijuana?), by all means, go for it and i'll have no issue with it. but you've got to do it on the strength of your argument, not by inflaming people's fears of the alternative you don't like. you'd be just as bad as a democrat or a republican
What "fears" and I inflaming? I've got people here telling me that without the minimum wage we'd be working in dilapidated sweat shops. I've got you telling me that without the force of government we'd all be red in tooth and claw. All I've alluded to is the basic rule of reciprocity -- the rights you grant yourself will also be granted to others.
3. a lynch mob, again, is a means of violence, and again, NOT LAW. it is called rule by majority... aka DEMOCRACY. if the majority decides to make something legal or illegal, that is not mob rule, it is democracy. again, quit playing drama queen. i normally respect you, but this new fav tactic of yours is pretty feeble.
Now this is good, minus the drama queen bit. Tell me, what separates law from violence?
4. this is inapplicable. one, i know your income is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans (see how fun hyperbole can be)
No, my life is more important to me that the lives of my fellow humans. And the essence of my life is my ability to make choices for myself.
, but there IS a difference between your income being taxed, and somebody's very body being owned by another person.
Yes, there is a difference. There is a difference between murder and premeditated murder as well, but the existence of difference does not make one good and one evil.
your thinking is purely academic and abstract and not grounded in reality. you're arguing ideology and philosophically on an issue that has to be grounded in the reality of this world.
The former is false, the latter is true. All philosophy must be grounded in the reality of this world.
the reality being people are more valuable than any amount of money.
Then why are you the one assigning them a minimum value?
your analogies are weak at best. two, the income tax and minimum wage we voted on applies to everyone equally.
No, they don't. You think they do because they are applied based on circumstance in which any person could find themselves, and in that context you're correct. However, you could make the exact same argument for slavery, based on the concept of racial and geographical circumstance. Therein, slavery applied to everyone equally as well. If you had been born in Africa or had been black, you could have been a slave. Similarly, if your slave had been born in Virginia and had been white, he could have been a slave owner. Similarly, if both African and Western societies had made different choices throughout history, the tables could have easily been turned wherein Africans could have been sailing West to enslave us.
You cannot escape the basic fact that you're granting rights to one side of a negotiation that you're withholding from the other. A worker may demand a wage higher than his value and hold the employer to it while the employer cannot demand a wage lower than his value and hold the employee to it.
Sure everyone has exactly the same everything and they survive and live, but really, it's a pretty dull and boring way to live.
Tell that to the guy working 80 hours a week a struggling to feed, clothe and shelter his family. Tell that to his hungry children. Tell them on Christmas morning.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Tell that to the guy working 80 hours a week a struggling to feed, clothe and shelter his family. Tell that to his hungry children. Tell them on Christmas morning.
While I agree that nobody really needs more than 50k a year, I find it difficult to accept that some lazy bastard who sloths his/her way through life could make the same cash as me, while I worked my ass off to pay for an education and I am only now reaping the financial benefits of that work. It's been said, but a maximum wage would create a very lazy, very uncreatve society.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
soulsinging, you are brilliant. There is nothing quite like having a compass to go with far-seeing vision. I'm a big fan of yours.
SPEEDY MCCREADY, I like your observation. And I harken back to the old days of our interactions when I first showed up on this board... and when you called me arrogant!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. ... The minimum wage has now fallen to 31 percent -- or less than one-third -- of the average hourly wage for nonsupervisory workers of $16.59 in May. This is the lowest share in the history of this data series, which begins in 1947." [CBPP, 6/20/06]
Perhaps that there are millions of Americans who would give just about anything for a little "boredom".
And I'm sure he'd be correct. There are millions of Americans who would give just about anything for a little "boredom". And it's certainly their right to give whatever they'd like to find it.
"Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. ... The minimum wage has now fallen to 31 percent -- or less than one-third -- of the average hourly wage for nonsupervisory workers of $16.59 in May. This is the lowest share in the history of this data series, which begins in 1947." [CBPP, 6/20/06]
Respond to inflation by paying people more than their labor is worth? Intruiging concept.
Respond to inflation by paying people more than their labor is worth? Intruiging concept.
Not really. A single person making the minimum wage is right at the poverty line. What type of labor do you think is worth less than the current minimum wage?
Not really. A single person making the minimum wage is right at the poverty line. What type of labor do you think is worth less than the current minimum wage?
Whatever type of labor the market decides is worth less than the current minimum wage. Whatever type of labor the employee and employer agree to. How else is value of labor rationally determined?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Not really. A single person making the minimum wage is right at the poverty line. What type of labor do you think is worth less than the current minimum wage?
Any labor that I wouldn't pay someone $5.15/hour for, but would pay them something for.
Whatever type of labor the market decides is worth less than the current minimum wage. Whatever type of labor the employee and employer agree to. How else is value of labor rationally determined?
So the market fairly decides the value of labor? Please elaborate.
Comments
The lack of a minimum wage is short of slavery by one very key facet --- forced labor. The objective difference between a slave and an employee is not the amount of money they are paid but rather whether or not the person is working against their will and whether or not the wage they receive was agreed to on their own terms or on someone else's. If I bind you, gag you, drag you off and force you to work in my field against your will and do not let you leave, you are a slave, even if I pay you $40 / hour. If you come to me, ask for a job, and I offer you $4 / hour and you willingly accept and have every opportunity to sever the arrangement at your discretion, you are not a slave.
Everyday in this country and others, many people willingly agree to exchange their labor with another for less than the minimum wage that is set. They do so willingly, and they do so for their own purposes and interests. In your world, those people and their employers are criminals for no other reason than that their mutual agreement fails to meet your standards. Now, who is the slavedriver here?
Not all people can do with out them. Not everyone has means of money to pay for college without them. And if you think that putting yourself in debt (at a low interest rate) to get an education in order to better yourself is a poor choice, then I my friend have made a poor choice. And before you go on the tangent about making better grades and getting scholarships, I had plenty of scholarships, but still had to take out loans as well as work to make ends meet.
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
Well in this instance it's certainly not ME!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, well let's refer to it as 'sweat shops' rather than 'slave labour'... for an employer to take advantage of a person knowing it's that choice or DIE... well I'm sorry but I'm incapable of understanding that kind of greed. You can explain it to me all you want but I still see it as similar to slavery.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Ok, this is fair. Thank you for amending the statement.
Sweat shop labor is similar to slavery, particularly since the sweat shop labor is often directly forced labor (making it slavery) or indirectly forced through circumstance (making it quasi-slavery).
I'm not sure why you equate "lack of a minimum wage" with sweat shops though. Removing the minimum wage doesn't give employers a) the right to force people to work in sweat shops or b) force individuals to choose sweat shops.
If, in the United States, the minimum wage was removed, certainly very low wage factories would emerge, particularly in places with high unemployment or low-educated workforces. My basic questions to you would be:
a) Why is this, by default, a bad thing?
b) Why is this, by default, any different than simply pushing those sweat shops overseas, particularly to nations with absolutely no concept of basic human rights?
Furthermore, do you not see the benefit of keeping those jobs in your home country where exposure and oversight of the conditions those workers operate in would be far greater??? We in the West continue to pass more and more legislation "protecting" workers, but at the same time continue to buy more and more products from workers in absolutely squalid conditions. Do such "workers rights" only matter when we can pretend those workers don't exist since they're in another country, rather than in our own backyard?
b. You're right, it's absolutely no different at all and you actually raise a good point about keeping this in our own country so we can protect them BUT workers everywhere should be protected... employers only want a profit and generally care little about those who MAKE this profit for them. I try, where I can to only buy Irish products and avoid products made in countries where sweat shops exist.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Imagine a low-wage factory where workers are paid, say, $2 / hour but the employer has no right to force people to work there or stay there. Why, by default, is that a bad thing?
And that's a great choice you're making! I wish more people would make similar choices, but their choices aren't really my business until they start harming me.
See, there's a problem here though. You keep referring to "protecting" workers, and that's quite noble. But you're crossing a line when you start overriding someone's will. You're not protecting someone when you tell them they're not allowed to take the job of their choice, even if that job is low paying menial labor.
Protecting workers' rights means protecting their freedoms of choice first. Once you start violating that, you cannot use the word "protection".
BECAUSE.. this is usually the ONLY choice, or employers wouldnt' pay so little cos nobody would work for them. If something is the ONLY choice, is it actually a choice at all? Well, a choice usually signifies you have things to choose between, doesn't it?
Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers... NOT the employers.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Certainly! A choice does signify that. Slavery leaves you no other option. Removing the minimum wage, however, does not limit your options. It only limits your right to force someone else to pay you something greater than your worth to them.
Yes. Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers....NOT harming the employers. Do you not recognize that employers are workers too?
1. no, my point was you're being ridiculous and not giving a valid and legitimate argument the consideration it deserves. not everyone who thinks progressive taxation is a communist, and you know it. if you dont, im sorry to tell you but senator mccarthy lost power a long time ago buddy. quit the witch-hunts and demonization of everything you disagree with.
2. no, but you CAN hide behind such an excuse for every LAW in the US. what part of my post did you not understand? minimum wage is LAW, not CRIME. if you have a criminal behavior and can muster the support to legalize it (marijuana?), by all means, go for it and i'll have no issue with it. but you've got to do it on the strength of your argument, not by inflaming people's fears of the alternative you don't like. you'd be just as bad as a democrat or a republican
3. a lynch mob, again, is a means of violence, and again, NOT LAW. it is called rule by majority... aka DEMOCRACY. if the majority decides to make something legal or illegal, that is not mob rule, it is democracy. again, quit playing drama queen. i normally respect you, but this new fav tactic of yours is pretty feeble.
4. this is inapplicable. one, i know your income is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans (see how fun hyperbole can be), but there IS a difference between your income being taxed, and somebody's very body being owned by another person. your thinking is purely academic and abstract and not grounded in reality. you're arguing ideology and philosophically on an issue that has to be grounded in the reality of this world. the reality being people are more valuable than any amount of money. your analogies are weak at best. two, the income tax and minimum wage we voted on applies to everyone equally. the people supporting it pay it too, they do not just impose on people they don't like. it goes across the board. if people vote to enslave only people other than them, that is different. now, if we all voted that anyone who gets into a car accident and can't pay the damages has to be someone else's butler for a year (god bless jerry seinfeld), that applies equally to everybody.
if you weren't worth that much to them, they wouldnt be in the business. the fact that there are still jobs in the US shows that employers find that horribly unjust minimum wage you're crying over is still worth paying for the money they receive.
pretty much. id oppose such a measure, but if it's what the people want, what am i going to do about it? im free to move and work elsewhere if i dont like it.
So if the majority of people want separate but equal schools and restaurants, that'd be OK with you, too?
I think this is where you're tripping up. We are governed by rule of law, not rule of will, whether that will be a monarch's or a mob's. When that democracy does something outside the bounds, it should be reigned in. Government theft of property, income, etc.. shouldn't be tolerated, and certainly shouldn't be excused simply because the majority voted for it. The bill of rights is full of clauses protecting the individual from the gov't and/or mob rule.
You're not putting any thought into this. You're suggesting that any job that isn't outsourced must be worth the minimum wage, which is ridiculous. You can't outsource a stockboy. You can't outsource a burger-flipper. Furthermore, if it "must be worth it", why even bother with a minimum wage at all? If the actual value of the labor is equal to or greater than your minimum wage, there would be no reason for the law.
I haven't accused anyone of being communist just because they support "progressive taxation" or the minimum wage. And I'm not interested in witch-hunts or demonizations.
I only want people to actually understand what they're doing and, in the process, perhaps make them think about the reprecussions.
What "fears" and I inflaming? I've got people here telling me that without the minimum wage we'd be working in dilapidated sweat shops. I've got you telling me that without the force of government we'd all be red in tooth and claw. All I've alluded to is the basic rule of reciprocity -- the rights you grant yourself will also be granted to others.
Now this is good, minus the drama queen bit. Tell me, what separates law from violence?
No, my life is more important to me that the lives of my fellow humans. And the essence of my life is my ability to make choices for myself.
Yes, there is a difference. There is a difference between murder and premeditated murder as well, but the existence of difference does not make one good and one evil.
The former is false, the latter is true. All philosophy must be grounded in the reality of this world.
Then why are you the one assigning them a minimum value?
No, they don't. You think they do because they are applied based on circumstance in which any person could find themselves, and in that context you're correct. However, you could make the exact same argument for slavery, based on the concept of racial and geographical circumstance. Therein, slavery applied to everyone equally as well. If you had been born in Africa or had been black, you could have been a slave. Similarly, if your slave had been born in Virginia and had been white, he could have been a slave owner. Similarly, if both African and Western societies had made different choices throughout history, the tables could have easily been turned wherein Africans could have been sailing West to enslave us.
You cannot escape the basic fact that you're granting rights to one side of a negotiation that you're withholding from the other. A worker may demand a wage higher than his value and hold the employer to it while the employer cannot demand a wage lower than his value and hold the employee to it.
Tell that to the guy working 80 hours a week a struggling to feed, clothe and shelter his family. Tell that to his hungry children. Tell them on Christmas morning.
And what is he going to tell me?
dedicated to the most fucking ridiculous thread ever .........
nice job people!!!!
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
SPEEDY MCCREADY, I like your observation. And I harken back to the old days of our interactions when I first showed up on this board... and when you called me arrogant!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And I'm sure he'd be correct. There are millions of Americans who would give just about anything for a little "boredom". And it's certainly their right to give whatever they'd like to find it.
Respond to inflation by paying people more than their labor is worth? Intruiging concept.
Not really. A single person making the minimum wage is right at the poverty line. What type of labor do you think is worth less than the current minimum wage?
Whatever type of labor the market decides is worth less than the current minimum wage. Whatever type of labor the employee and employer agree to. How else is value of labor rationally determined?
Any labor that I wouldn't pay someone $5.15/hour for, but would pay them something for.
So the market fairly decides the value of labor? Please elaborate.