Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only thing wrong with this question is that you can't or wont answer it.
Yes I did. I said I had no idea.
quote:
Do a little research and you will find out that none of them do.
Well, I looked up number one on the list, Bill Gates, and he founded Microsoft. Starting a company takes a lot of work. Same thing for number two, Warren Buffet, who started out as a newspaper delivery boy. Sergey Brin, number five on the list, is one of the co-founders of Google. I seriously doubt that he did so by resting in a lawn chair and sniffing his toe jam.
quote:
For those who can't tango there is always the Texas two step. Perhaps you might get a dictionary and look up the word work.
work n. Physical and/or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
That’s according to the Free Online Dictionary.
quote:
I have no bias against those who can afford a Rolls Royce and you can cite no reference of mine stating such. I do have a bias against those who use their wealth to keep the not wealthy in that state.
Oh please. How many times have I heard terms like "uber-rich"?
quote:
It was a question not a definition.
Yes, it was a question but questions rest upon assumptions and your question seemed to rest upon an assumption that only rich people count as successful.
quote:
I thought you said you worked for your families business?
I do. That where I work. That’s where I do my job.
quote:
Not so. I simply asked you who among the Forbes 1000 worked for their money.
But for what purpose if not in an (vain) attempt to discredit the general notion that one has to work for their money?
quote:
Who specifically on the Forbes 1000 has worked to produce anything?
Once again, let’s start with Bill Gates who worked to produce a software company.
quote:
Forbes has several lists of wealthy people...I was just giving you the largest list so you might have an easier time of finding at least one of them who actually works for his or her money.
Well the Forbes "One" would have been sufficient since the first person on the list is Bill Gates.
quote:
You mean paying them what their time is worth.
You mean what you consider their time is worth. I consider the employer and the employee to be in a better position to make that decision.
quote:
This is absolutely correct
Well, at least we agree on something. Now if you would just keep repeating this mantra: Marc2b is always right ... Marc2b is always right.... perhaps we can build this into a meaningful relationship.
quote:
You mean like the incompetent cocksucker that was the CEO of Home Depot who got a 250,000,000 severance check for his incompetence when they fired his ass.
His job did not disappear.
Once again, you are using a specific in a vain attempt to discredit a known generality.
quote:
This is absolutely fatuous.
No it’s not.
quote:
This is the same argument that the slave holders used to justify slavery. "If we had to pay the slaves what "free labor" is paid we could not sell our product".
So? How does that discredit the argument? The fact that some nefarious people use a particular argument to advance a nefarious agenda does not in an of itself negate the argument. Some Muslims use the Koran to advocate killing infidels, does that negate the entire religion of Islam?
With me the point is moot, anyway. How many times on these boards have I said that I want a free society. Slavery (the real kind, not the fun BDSM kind) has no place in a free society. One of the bedrock principles of a free society is that each individual is free to sell their own labor (be it physical or mental).
quote:
If you have a business that cannot exist by paying labor what it is worth you do not have a business.
True, but the question, once again, is what is the labor worth? If the price of labor is set artificially high by the government so that you can’t afford to pay it, you are not going to have a business. But it doesn’t even have to go that far. If the price of labor is artificially set higher than it’s worth, many would be employers – even though they could afford it – will not pay for it (and will look for cheaper alternatives) because they don’t want to spend that much. Once again, labor is like any other commodity – if the price is to high people aren’t going to pay for it. Haven’t you ever walked into a store, saw something you wanted but, when you saw the price, decided against it – not because you couldn’t afford it but because to you it wasn’t worth that much?
quote:
You seem not to know much about the history of labor/management relations. Management in the past has had the position of locking the doors to the factory and saying "when you are hungry enough to eat dirt then you will come back to work for what I am willing to pay you. In the mean time I have all the money I need so go fuck yourself and your demands for a living wage"
And what did it get them? A seat at the negotiating table across from some union representatives, that’s what! Now please don’t give me a spiel about strikes and violent confrontations and new laws, my point is that your fear that a repeal of the minimum wage (which I do know will never happen in my lifetime) will lead to the vast majority of Americans being turned into dirt poor peons is unfounded.
quote:
Your memory is a little faulty here Mark. More often than not the person who pumped your gas and washed your windshield etc was a full grown man...who in many cases was the owner of the establishment.
In many cases, but not in all. The very fact that different people and businesses have different circumstances is why I am against the general concept that you can legislate the perfect society.
quote:
Never in your lifetime has there not been a minimum wage in this country.
Those teenagers you refer to were making minimum wage. So if it worked then why not now?
You’re making my point. It’s not working now because increases in the minimum wage have priced the jobs out of the market. Before you bring it up, I will grant that there are other factors involved in why jobs disappear (changes in technology, for example) but the fact remains – if an employer is told he must pay X dollars an hour for a certain job, and he doesn’t think it is worth X dollars, he is less likely to make the hire.
quote:
Of course not, now he gets that labor for free from his patrons.
If their willing to do it, why not? One less expense. If people wanted more service, and were willing to pay for it, there would be more full service stations.
quote:
While I have never worked for minimum wage, I do remember that it was .90 cents an hour when I was in high school. Gasoline was .30 cents a gallon. Hamburger was .35 cents a pound and bread was .25 cents a loaf. Today federal minimum wage is just under $6.00 an hour and gasoline is $3.00 a gallon bread is over a dollar a loaf and hamburger is over two dollars a pound. My point is that the number of hours you need to work for basic commodities has not changed dramatically. All that has changed are the numbers.
Actually, the real question would be: if their had been no minimum wage, would wages have kept up with prices? I suspect that you would say no because of the uber-rich and right wing thugs and heartless factory owners and all that. I believe that they would have for two reasons. First, systems seek equilibrium. You can’t sell things to people who can’t afford them. Second, despite my seeming cynicism at times I am generally optimistic and have faith in humanity. Mostly I have faith that people will do (or at least attempt) what is in their best (or what they perceive to be in their best) interest. Even with a minimum wage people demanded higher wages. They unionized and got them. Why would a lack of a minimum wage have impeded that process? If anything, it just might have propelled it.
quote:
Outsourcing is simply a method to evade the constitutional ban on slavery in this country. We can't legally use American slaves but there is no constitutional ban on Chinese,Indian or Mexican slaves. If you want to re institute slavery then get your congressman to introduce a bill to repeal the 13th14thand 15th amendment.
Outsourcing is paying less for labor than you have to. Personally, I’m not keen on outsourcing (how about going to bat for the home team if you can, huh?) but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why it happens which is what I have been saying all along – that such jobs are being priced out of the American Market.
quote:
If you were to raise the minimum wage to about $15 an hour then an illegal could not get a job in this country. At $15 an hour citizens would take the jobs that illegals now get $5 an hour for.
That's me at the mere thought of the negative impact on the economy that a sudden doubling of the minimum wage would have.
If you raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour you will put a lot of people out of work. Some will lose their jobs because the employer doesn’t want to pay that much. Some will lose their jobs because their employer can’t pay that much. Many small businesses will go under, others will have to reduce their work force. How does that in anyway help these people? How does taking people off the tax rolls (and onto unemployment and welfare) help government revenue? The illegals, however, will have a much easier time finding a job because you’ve just increased the incentive to seek cheap labor.
quote:
You won't work for $1 an hour but somehow you think someone else will.
No, actually, I don’t think there would be many who would work for a dollar an hour. But there might be some willing to do a job for three or four dollars an hour and then they would have money they would not otherwise have.
quote:
You say that the minimum wage in New York is $7.15. Where in New York can you live on $14,000 a year, that is assuming that you are working full time.
Quite a few places actually. Don’t make the mistake many out of state folk make and equate New York the State with New York the City. Aside from New York City (which the rest of us New Yorkers regard as some sort of weird aberration that, unfortunately, controls state politics) and a few other good sized cities (Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester), New York the state is largely rural, consisting a small farming communities. Many of the folk there (some of who I know personally) are probably classified as poor by the government but they are self sufficient and money is not the only measure of wealth.
But there is in your question another underlying assumption that I question. Why ask why someone could live on $14,000 a year? Why is it that every time the minimum wage issue comes up people speak of a living wage? Why is it presumed that every job must be a job that can support somebody? What’s wrong with jobs that just add to the primary (supporting) income of a family? What’s wrong with jobs that just put a little extra spending money in somebody’s pocket? Those are the jobs that minimum wage laws price out of the market. I can see no logical or moral reason for doing so.
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: Banks: Welfare costs greatest threat to US economy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread