Topic: On Motivation
started by: TheTaxMan
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 10 2002,21:59
MattTheTaxMan: what I do want to know is why I'm unmotivated...<friend>: b/c you haven't found a reason to be motivated
MattTheTaxMan: well exactly, bu I don't even understand the concept
MattTheTaxMan: why people have devised a system of government and this huge economy around somehting that is so effort intensive boggles my mind
MattTheTaxMan: -completely- unfathomable to me
MattTheTaxMan: I mean, seriously..
MattTheTaxMan: This "Republic" thing just isn't ideal...
MattTheTaxMan: and some many people think it is
MattTheTaxMan: some, so
MattTheTaxMan: it's not even close
MattTheTaxMan: people die because they work to much, how dumb is that!
MattTheTaxMan: it's rediculous
MattTheTaxMan: and it's all becasue of Capitalism
MattTheTaxMan: Whatever works I guess..
MattTheTaxMan: They all sat quietly, thier ears on edge, as an eerie silence prevailed throught the wood.
MattTheTaxMan: A twig broke somewhere.
MattTheTaxMan: (that is your que to jump in)
<friend>: Sorry about not responding. I was just talking to a hot girl.
MattTheTaxMan: yes well...
<friend>: but...
<friend>: it requires a lot of work to realize our human potential
<friend>: there are so many problems that have to be fixed, and not enough time to fix them
<friend>: and to make some sort of difference we have to work hard.
MattTheTaxMan: bah, they dug up the money from the root of the tree
MattTheTaxMan: to allude to chaucer
<friend>: I just think you haven't found the thing that you want to do with your life, the thing that you feel would bring you meaning
<friend>: and until you find that I think you are going to wallow in the pointlessness of life
MattTheTaxMan: only because a few people have to have more than anytone else does communism not provide a utopia
<friend>: not true. Communism provides no incentive to work harder
MattTheTaxMan: that's becasue there is no insentive
MattTheTaxMan: anywhere, it doesn't exist
<friend>: The USSR had the lowest rate of doctors in the world
<friend>: b/c they got paid the same as the janitors
**edit drivel about communism**
MattTheTaxMan: getting side tracked tho
<friend>: but regardless of gov or no gov, I think that even then people will only do what they need to do to get the rewards
<friend>: yeah
<friend>: we are sidetracked
MattTheTaxMan: why is anyone a doctor now?
MattTheTaxMan: is it only for the money?
MattTheTaxMan: if so, humanity is hopeless, as far as I'm concerned
<friend>: it's not for money
<friend>: its a mix of a lot of things
<friend>: most people don't go through years of college and grad school for money
MattTheTaxMan: what's the inssentive to be a doctor, I want to know
<friend>: some people like the fact that they can help/save people
MattTheTaxMan: that's what a lot of people do
MattTheTaxMan: ok then, Helping People
<friend>: I like making programs/devices that can help people do that
MattTheTaxMan: that's free
<friend>: but see, that isn't the only thing
MattTheTaxMan: what else?
MattTheTaxMan: $$$$$$$$
<friend>: absolute self-sacrifice is as immoral as absolute selfishness, b/c it disregards the self
<friend>: I don't what it is you want from people
MattTheTaxMan: it's not absolute self sacrifice
<friend>: you bitch at one end and bitch at the other
<friend>: you get mad at people for wanting money and are disappointed when they take it
MattTheTaxMan: I'm losing you
<friend>: the problem is we operate at a fundamental level in a market system
MattTheTaxMan: yes
MattTheTaxMan: exactly
<friend>: and they tried to have a merket system even in communism, but that is incomaptible
MattTheTaxMan: that is the problem
MattTheTaxMan: the whole concept of the market place is hugely wound about greed
MattTheTaxMan: and it's been ingrained into society
<friend>: but the thing is, b/c humans are always trying to get an advanage over their neighbors (call it a remnant from the state of nature)
<friend>: But we know that
<friend>: I mean, what alternative can you see?
MattTheTaxMan: well I don't
MattTheTaxMan: what the fuck, I get the shaft
MattTheTaxMan: you see?
<friend>: well, you aren't entitled to anything. You have to earn it
<friend>: I am not entitled to anything either
<friend>: I am working for it as well
MattTheTaxMan: that's the problem..
<friend>: And I think it is fair that the work I put in is the satisfaction and reimbursement I get out of it
MattTheTaxMan: You're going to be busting your ass until you're 65 and can't enjoy life nearly as much
<friend>: but I can. I can have a family and know they are provided for
MattTheTaxMan: when are you getting reimbursed?
MattTheTaxMan: see, you just switched to my side
MattTheTaxMan: Having a family and knowning they're provided for has nothing to do w/ greed
MattTheTaxMan: it has nothing to do w/ the market place
<friend>: but the providing of them has a substantial amount to do in the marketplace
MattTheTaxMan: and that's not a legitamate goal of the entire concept of capitalism as far as I'm concerned
MattTheTaxMan: why?
MattTheTaxMan: there are tons of people who are single
<friend>: instead of complaining about the system from the outside looking in I try to work within the system to get what I want
MattTheTaxMan: and your goal in life is to have a fmaily and provide for them.
<friend>: maybe the single people work so that one day they can support a family
MattTheTaxMan: I don't get it
MattTheTaxMan: there must be some missing gene
<friend>: ppl don't just give up hope on stuff like that (not everyday tho)
<friend>: my goal in life is to do something
<friend>: I would prefer that something be productive
MattTheTaxMan: and my goal is to live
<friend>: but see, I think that by doing something I define and ligitimize my existance
MattTheTaxMan: just existing is wealth enough as far as I'm concerned
MattTheTaxMan: This Quest for Immortallity everyone haves I don't understand
<friend>: well, then learn to hunt and mend your clothes and live in nature.
<friend>: I don't care about immortality
<friend>: I know I'm going to live and going to die
MattTheTaxMan: to do something productive and to have a family
MattTheTaxMan: immortality is met by other means than living forever
<friend>: see, diong something productive doesn't mean immortality
MattTheTaxMan: shakespeare is immortal
<friend>: having a family is just an ambition of mine
MattTheTaxMan: Bell is immortal
<friend>: Look, I could be a politician and go into the history books, but I just don't think I want to stoop to that level
MattTheTaxMan: the history of what?
MattTheTaxMan: I'm not just arguing for the sake of it this time
MattTheTaxMan: I truely don't see the point
<friend>: I dunno. history of our country. History of the world, if I'm underhanded enough
MattTheTaxMan: But that's just what I'm on about
MattTheTaxMan: It's always revolved around who stabs the most backs and who comes out with the most
MattTheTaxMan: how many people know who Edison was?
<friend>: I just want to live a life where, when I die, people don't say that the world is better off without me. They don't have to say it's worse necessarily (although that would help my dead ego), but they can at least say it isn't better.
MattTheTaxMan: well that's all good and well
<friend>: see, I don't see what your problem is with the world. I think that instead of criticizing it from the outside, one day you should try to actually become a part of it. The view really is different from the inside.
<friend>: I don't think that makes me any worse of a person
MattTheTaxMan: what does that even mean?
MattTheTaxMan: I'm not critisizing anything you've said, I just don't understand it
<friend>: I figured that out a while back.
<friend>: And I'm not mad or anything, just trying to spread my horribly unenlightened thoughts
MattTheTaxMan: whatever you say
MattTheTaxMan: I'm at a disadvantage
MattTheTaxMan: Everyone else I know has some sort of "goal" in life
MattTheTaxMan: and I can spout off what I plan to do in 5 years
MattTheTaxMan: or 10 years
MattTheTaxMan: or whatever
MattTheTaxMan: but it really means nothing, becasue I'd rather be "living"
MattTheTaxMan: which has absolutely nothing to do w/ having a job
<friend>: I just think that you really need to stop complaining about the world and how you are disadvantaged and say what you want out of life.
<friend>: If it is living, what does that entail to you
MattTheTaxMan: it doesn't entail anything, it entails nothing
<friend>: I think the problem is that you are too lazy to go into these issues fully. You only go half-assed
MattTheTaxMan: I only do everything half assed, becasue I have no desire for success
MattTheTaxMan: nothing I see in the future is worth the years of effort it's worth
<friend>: and I think that you have no desire for success because you haven't found something you want to be successful at
MattTheTaxMan: If I get an MD, are the 48 hour shifts going to compencate for the 20 years lost in school?
MattTheTaxMan: is the money?
MattTheTaxMan: is the personal reward?
MattTheTaxMan: *shrug*
MattTheTaxMan: the end result is I have to force myself to do anything having to do w/ "success in the real world"
MattTheTaxMan: becasue none of it's worth it as far as I can tell
<friend>: well, I think before you make a generalized statement you should figure out what you like doing. Hell, if it is moralizing than maybe you should be a philosopher. Try to study what the great thinkers have thought so that you can figure out what you think
MattTheTaxMan: the ideal situation doesn't exist
<friend>: maybe it does, maybe it doesn't
<friend>: you're still too young to claim an absolute statement (which is a fallacy of logic, btw)
<friend>: it may exist, but maybe you haven't found it yet
MattTheTaxMan: have you?
MattTheTaxMan: can you see it upon you?
<friend>: considering you started this off saying you are too lazy (possibly too lazy even to search) I don't think that you can cast it off
<friend>: Maybe not exactly, but I am not claiming it will never exist
<friend>: I stay open to the possibility at least
<friend>: If it isn't there, then at least I tried searching for it.
MattTheTaxMan: (possibly too lazy even to search)
MattTheTaxMan: so where do you get motivation?
MattTheTaxMan: capitalism doesn't turn me on like the rest of the world, it seems
<friend>: From an underlying optimism that believes things will get better
MattTheTaxMan: I've just digressed 40000 years
<friend>: yup
<friend>: hey, man, i gotta go talk to this hot girl that I was talking to earlier
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 10 2002,22:14
*sigh* just give us the jist of it... I don't feel like reading all that
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 10 2002,22:21
Well then don't reply, obviously.
Posted by editor on Apr. 11 2002,01:48
Sorry dude, I'm with CK on that one.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 11 2002,03:37
reading a page of an article is one thing, but reading a page of a chat conversation is just annoying.
Posted by editor on Apr. 11 2002,05:28
I read the first few and the last few. Did I get the gist?
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 11 2002,07:40
gist: (since i'm friend enough to read it entirely...)taxman doens't like the fact that life has him in a bind, nor the fact that life requires effort due to our way of life in this country (ie. capatilism), as well, the greed in human nature that makes everyone do what they can for just another dollar.. the biggest point in all of that, imho, is the effort one person puts into earning their living worth the life they live?
my belief is, if one person really loves doing what they put effort into, yes.. but if a person half-asses everything and doens't really care, and that's good enough for them, then that's fine too.. who am i to worry about another person's existence.. i dont' care what other people do, unless if what they do affects my existence in some way, shape, or form...
my existence blows as well.. i hate where my life is right now.. but i fucking bust my ass to get out of this place, and live an interesitng life. and to me, it's worth it, to hell with what other people think of my existence.
if i'm wrong on the gist of things, i apologize, and correct me.
also, living in florida, we are at a disadvantage to the rest of the world.
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 11 2002,07:43
eh, i may need to change the most important gist of his conversation to :Is the life one lives worth the effort he or she puts into it?
(ie. ton of effort for little pay-off, and other such nonsense.)
Posted by kuru on Apr. 11 2002,13:46
You know why capitalism works? Because it specifically rewards those who put forth effort and achieve by merit, and it punishes those who are lazy, put forth no effort and produce nothing.Why do people go to medical school (or engineering school, in my case)? Well, in part it has to do with their interest in the field, but mere interest isn't enough to make someone choose a career - they're going to be concerned about paying the bills, about having some luxury to enjoy. If I could be either an engineer or a janitor and make exactly the same wage, which would I be?
I'd be a janitor. I love being an engineer, all the thought I get to put into what I do, all the rational solutions to problems. I love coming up with the answers. I'm just not going to do it for someone else if they're going to pay me less than my talents are worth. My education cost me (I'm still paying) somewhere around 80000$ total. Eighty thousand dollars to improve my mind so that I could do the things I do. That money was spent as an investment, to make improvements to me, so that I could shop my skills around in the market place and get a better price for them. Eighty grand and five years of intense stress and effort because I knew I wanted to be in a position to produce something of value so that I would reap a better reward. That's called meritocracy.
Now, the 'crap about communism' is that it provides absolutely no means whatsoever to motivate a person beyond the rock bottom minimum of survival. Tell me that I spent those five years working on my mind, undergoing some of the most difficult mental exercise there is, voluntarily heaping personal and professional responsibility on myself to the point that if I sign my name to a design and someone gets killed by it my career, my livelihood, is over... and then tell me that I will make no more money than the person who pushes a broom around on the floor and see how fast I change my mind about making personal sacrifice. When there is no reward for my hard work, I'm certainly not going to provide it to someone else. Maybe I will still develop my mind, for me, so that I can go sell my skill on the black market - but I'm certainly not going to give away my skills for less than they are worth.
Would I be bored pushing a broom around the floor? Possibly. But if I know that no matter what I do, I will always occupy the same socioeconomic status of a broom-pusher, I'm going to be a broom pusher. Instead of turning my mental power toward engineering as a way to not be a broom pusher, I'm going to absentmindedly push my broom around and hope that one day I can go somewhere that there is something called 'opportunity.'
Then of course, there are people who think that someone like me should work as an engineer and pay out nearly half my salary in taxes because they feel entitled to sit on their ass all day long, not have a job, and 'just live, man'. You wanna live? Great. Take care of it yourself and stop asking me to finance it through exorbitantly high income taxes.
I work to earn money so that I can spend that money on people/things of my choosing to improve the quality and happiness of my life. You want to skip that 'work' step and just go spend money?
Hello? Not on my dime.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 11 2002,14:24
People always get so angry at me when I talk about this. My point is it's a flawed system and everyone deals with it. I don't see it as ideal at all, although half of the world does. Don't worry Kuru, I'm not on welfare or will I be ever. I'll slave over some task, mindless or not, just like everyone else is or "should." Do I know how to fix anyone of these things? Unfortunately, no. If I could fix one thing, however, it would be the way I think, because apparently, I have some fundemental flaw in the way I proceed in my life. I'm not claiming communism is a Good Thing because it obviously can't work. I'm not claim capitalism is a Bad Thing, since it's basically the only thing that does work that we've stumbled upon.The jist is, Where do you get the modivation for it all? Why are you slaving away, just to slave away even more? Why is this an exceptable solution? And a new one I was talking about last night, Why does no one try to improve or change the way the way capitalism works?
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 11 2002,16:23
Capitalism works ...if it's not working for you then you need to change the way you are playing the game. It's just like any other sport, some people are born with an advantage (height, build, raw talent) and some people have to train themselves and learn some better strategy. If I suck at basketball do I have the right to fault the rules of the game? Is all the blame on the referee and none on me? The first steps toward improving yourself at anything is to admit that you are not as good as you can be and that you need to set time aside to work on your weak areas.I had this same argument with my cousin a few weeks ago. He has it set in his mind that if he takes any job that requires office work then he is selling out to the system (he is a god damn hippie ...my arch nemesis). He wants to be a musician, but he's not willing to alter his musical stylings to make himself more marketable because that would be selling out as well. So basically he doesn't want to change anything he's doing but he wants the world to beat a path to his doorstep and hand him everything on a silver platter. He is convinced that one day everything will "just work out" but he is taking no steps to ensure that it will. This is aggravating to me because I am a realist. If the record companies didn't hand you a record deal yesterday or today and you haven't changed anything about your music or the way you promote yourself then you can't expect them to hand you one tomorrow. That's just not logical.
So is life worth what you put into it? That is I guess the question that you are trying to answer for yourself. I got another one for you to answer first; did you put the right effort into creating the life that you want. You see, you can spend all day in the kitchen working hard and adding a lot of ingredients but if they don't mix well or they don't add the flavors you are expecting then your meal is not going to have the taste that you want. Life is the same way, you have to research what kind of life you want and add the proper ingredients. This is the key to success, not working harder. Here's a comparison for you - take a lawyer who makes between $80K-$150K and a burger flipper at McDonalds who rakes in $10K-$15K. Now is the lawyer's job that much harder? I think not. (Think about the lunch rush at McDonalds, employees scrambling around with sweat on their brow making burgers as fast as they can just while the line grows and grows). The lawyer just has a better recipe for success. He/She has developed a particular knowledge base and skill set over time that is worth money, and as time goes on their knowledge base will continue to increase as new laws are applied or changes are made within the courts. The burger flipper ...well he/she learned a skill in 10 minutes on their first day of work and will never learn anything new during their employment with McDonalds. So how can that burger flipper get ahead? First they need to identify a demand that needs to be filled in the world and work nights and weekends to mold his/her self into somebody different who can supply that demand. That is capitalism, and it works 100% of the time. So why do people always complain that capitalism doesn’t work? The same reason a football team complains that they never win any Super Bowls, they just suck at the game!
Posted by kuru on Apr. 11 2002,16:40
Why are you slaving away, just to slave away even more?I work hard now so that I can earn money which I invest so that my money can earn money so that I can improve my situation in life.
I don't work extra hours so that I can work extra hours so that my life gets harder. Actually, anything I work beyond 40 hours a week is for my own satisfaction (and the extra money that allows me to have the things I want).
It works out pretty well for me. I found a thing that was needed, I discovered I really liked it, I made myself good at it, I get paid nicely for my effort.
Seems like a sweet deal to me.
Also, my level of skill allows me to bend the rules. Wiley's expressed disapproval of my hair color because it doesn't fit his idea of mainstream professional. Maybe it doesn't, but the thing is, I'm good enough at what I do that my flouting of certain rules is not only accepted, it's expected. Because my skills are desired, I'm granted all sorts of privileges, concessions and payments to provide them. If one employer doesn't want to bend on things that are important to me, I shop around until I find someone who will give me what I want for the skills I have.
I love capitalism.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 11 2002,16:55
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 11 April 2002,06:24) |
Specifics-
| Quote |
| Why are you slaving away, just to slave away even more? Why is this an exceptable solution? |
Um ...this isn't an exceptable solution. Very few millionaires I know are slaving away. Most of them worked their ass off in school and for 5-10 years when they started working, but now they are reaping what they sowed.
| Quote |
| Why does no one try to improve or change the way the way capitalism works? |
People have tried but they shouldn't. If you try and improve on capitalism you destroy the delicate balance that supply/demand creates. Things like subsidizing, discounts for low income families and welfare work against the people that they are trying to protect. If government sponsered programs stopped, then taxes would be less and the dollars of the people in need of these programs would find their money went further. They could in turn better themselves without the fear of loosing the breaks given to them by said programs. I think we f'ed with capitalism enough already.
Posted by Crafty Butcher on Apr. 11 2002,17:52
kuru: there is no way i can let you get away equating capitalism with a meritocracy. if that was the case then there is no way that the guy who reads the news on CNN would get paid more than say a nurse. Capitalism works for you kuru...to be fair, it has worked for me too, but there are an enormous number of ppl whom it fails on a daily basis. Where did the $80000 that put you thru school come from? did you earn every cent yourself? (if you did, then i apologise in advance, but it seems unlikely) if not then you have relied on your (or your parents) socio-economic position at birth or your above-average intelligence (in the case of scholarships) to gain the skills that are going to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed. unfortunately for you, poor, dumb, lazy ppl have rights too - even US capitalism isn't so rabid as to suggest that anyone without a job for *whatever* reason should just shuffle off their mortal coil and stop being a drain on the rest of us (i'm not saying that you are suggesting that, but you're dangerously close). the carrot dangled in front of such ppl is that under capitalism an uneducated, working class person *can* work their way out of poverty. well strictly speaking i *can* become a pro-ball player. i'm tall enough, i could use a bit of coaching but there is nothing stopping me trying except the fact that the chances of it happening are about 16,000,000 to 1. Trite tho it may sound the major affect of the stability that capitalism brings is that poor ppl stay poor and rich ppl stay rich. and to say that cos that works out ok for you then it's a good system is bollocks, frankly.Wiley: i agree with your first paragraph. but if you think that ppl already paying the lowest rate of tax would suddenly be ok if they paid a bit less tax and had their benefits (govt aid, whatever) removed. then you are considerably dumber than i deemed possible for someone who usually makes a fair amount of sense.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 11 2002,18:56
| Quote |
| Wiley: i agree with your first paragraph. but if you think that ppl already paying the lowest rate of tax would suddenly be ok if they paid a bit less tax and had their benefits (govt aid, whatever) removed. then you are considerably dumber than i deemed possible for someone who usually makes a fair amount of sense. |
the key word being suddenly. or not suddenly, rather. when you pay poor people to stay poor, they will, well, stay poor. if you take away their money, they will (eventually) get jobs.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 11 2002,19:05
| Quote (Crafty Butcher @ 11 April 2002,09:52) |
| Wiley: i agree with your first paragraph. but if you think that ppl already paying the lowest rate of tax would suddenly be ok if they paid a bit less tax and had their benefits (govt aid, whatever) removed. then you are considerably dumber than i deemed possible for someone who usually makes a fair amount of sense. |
hehe ...yeah, I wasn't very clear there. Let me restate my opinion a bit more clearly.
1. Eliminate Welfare Programs
What I was trying to point out is that the subsidies that the government issues out (I'm looking at welfare type aid specifically here) do more to hold the poor down then they do to promote self sufficiency. Basing the amount of welfare on the level of poverty and amount of children actually present a argument for lowering your standard of living to create more government sponsored opportunity for yourself. This of course is not a good long-term position, but most of the poor people I have known lacked sound investment strategies
Welfare also alters the supply/demand equilibrium by introducing monies into the economy that do not go through services in exchange for wages transaction. Instead, welfare money goes through a kind of trickle up economics ...we give the poor some free money that they turn over in exchange for goods or services. This money could be used to pay a higher wage for an employee, but why bother if the employee is already subsidized by the government ...just pocket the extra cash. So in the end we see that the money the government gave to the poor just ended up back in the hands of the rich ...and the poor is no better off.
Lower taxes on the poor
Of course paying less taxes will not automatically raise your standard of living, but coupled with a few other changes the results can have a big impact on your bottom line. I believe there is a point where you no longer have excess money to sponcer government projects (ie: pay taxes) and are instead in need of money just for necessities. Most of your paycheck should go to you. As far as sales tax goes, taxes on things that the poor would spend welfare resources on should be cut out completely (why would you tax people on things they need and are spending our tax money to acquire). So now the poor pay less income tax and less sales tax to bring them up economically, now we have to bring them up socially. The role a government can provide is one of job placement, job training, money management training and basic healthcare.
Higher Minimum Wage
Ultimately you're going to need cash to better yourself. The way to improve the standard of living in true capitalistic fashion is to raise the pay scale. By doing this it will cause companies to have to produce more to earn enough to meet the same margins as they did before the minimum wage went up ...thus forcing the work force to be more productive for their increased minimum wage (this will require companies to streamline their efficiency). Companies benefit by increased efficiency, the poor have more income and at some point will have disposable income and start buying more goods/services which benefits the corporate world and the government through the sales tax that is still in place on non-essentials.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 11 2002,19:10
| Quote |
| kuru: there is no way i can let you get away equating capitalism with a meritocracy. if that was the case then there is no way that the guy who reads the news on CNN would get paid more than say a nurse. |
There are far more nurses than there are 'guys who read news on CNN.' They have worked extremely hard to climb to the top of the ladder in their field, and they should be compensated for that.
| Quote |
| Capitalism works for you kuru...to be fair, it has worked for me too, but there are an enormous number of ppl whom it fails on a daily basis. |
Who?
| Quote |
| Where did the $80000 that put you thru school come from? did you earn every cent yourself? (if you did, then i apologise in advance, but it seems unlikely) if not then you have relied on your (or your parents) socio-economic position at birth or your above-average intelligence (in the case of scholarships) to gain the skills that are going to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed. |
Most of it I earned, some of it I borrowed, some of it was scholarships. Scholarship money, believe it or not, is earned. I worked very hard in academic circles to get myself merit scholarships, competing with some of the brightest people I ever met. Some of them earned more scholarship money than I did, and some less, but make no mistake. We earned it by years of applying ourselves to studying.
| Quote |
| unfortunately for you, poor, dumb, lazy ppl have rights too - even US capitalism isn't so rabid as to suggest that anyone without a job for *whatever* reason should just shuffle off their mortal coil and stop being a drain on the rest of us (i'm not saying that you are suggesting that, but you're dangerously close). |
I will say that I can see no good reason to support someone whose only 'disadvantage' is extreme laziness.
| Quote |
| the carrot dangled in front of such ppl is that under capitalism an uneducated, working class person *can* work their way out of poverty. well strictly speaking i *can* become a pro-ball player. i'm tall enough, i could use a bit of coaching but there is nothing stopping me trying except the fact that the chances of it happening are about 16,000,000 to 1. |
The odds aren't good, but that's different from 'impossibility.' There are what, 400 or so professional baseball players in the Major League? How'd they get there? By being the best at what they do. They devoted their lives to developing their skill and by merit were selected to play in MLB. They earned their way, but you want to delegitimize it because you didn't? It doesn't work that way.
| Quote |
| Trite tho it may sound the major affect of the stability that capitalism brings is that poor ppl stay poor and rich ppl stay rich. and to say that cos that works out ok for you then it's a good system is bollocks, frankly. |
Are you assuming that I grew up rich? Poor people have every opportunity to become not-poor people. Albert Einstein couldn't make it into college, worked as a patent clerk, and eventually became the most famous physicist of modern times. Henry Ford was born on a farm and was apprenticed to a machinist before he eventually became an engineer at Edison Illumination Company. He started Ford Motor Company in 1903 with $100,000 he had gotten 12 investors to front. He became a billionaire before his death in 1947.
Poverty to rich is possible, but it takes a kind of hard work and a frugal nature that is rare these days.
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 11 2002,21:09
while we may have strayed from taxman's post a bit again.. i'll go with it...We're all going in circles on these issues. PLain and simple. Capitalism can reward thoise who work hard, it can also penalize people for being "too good" at what they do. The government felt the necessity to create welfare, and what-not, which penalizes the middle-class to support others whom apparently can not obtain work (or shose not too). I shall not begin my rantings against SS, or Welfare, and what have you.
but i will say, in regards wiley, raising the minimum wage is going to kill this economy. The minimum wage raises, thus raises the cost of living... those of us in the corporate world set that pace... minimum wage effects nothing (gives no more purchasing power to the consumer). You have the same purchasing power now, as minimum wage gave 30 years ago.
Yes. you do, if i could post charts and graphs on it, i would... nevertheless... i don't really care to argue such a subject, we're just going to go in circles...
now, to another point: humans are lazy. we all want something for nothing. that will never change. capitalism won't change it, you can't change it, i cna't change it.. God himself couldn't change it.. (not to be taken literally, but added for affect)...
the amount of value one places on to his or her life defines/dtermines how much effort they will put into "bettering" it. it's that simple. If someone wants to live as a park ranger, and chill his entire life.. it's possible. if someone wants to live as a janitor becuase he/she has a decent car, and enough spending cash to party every single night of his/her life.. so be it. I personally don't care what people do with their lives.. except for when it affects my life (ie. welfare, social security, etc..) won't enter that one agian...
taxman, the only thing i can say as far as motivation is concerned is my own, it's the same with everyone else.. no one can tell you how to be motivated, or what to be motivated for/over... i wish i could, you're one of my best friends.. i'm more than glad to help you "better" your life to whatever you feel "bettering" would be.
everything depends on the individual.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 11 2002,21:56
Just for good measure...None of YOU are going to be paying welfare to ME so stfu about it.
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 12 2002,01:46
you say you work hard to earn more money which is fine. but what about peopole who chose jobs that aren't that well paid but they find more satisfaction from them than a higher paid job. That ain't capitalism thats called enjoying life.I'd be happy with an medium to low paid job if it meant i could have a job that i enjoyed. I'm not amazingly interested in money. it's all relative anywayz, you work towards something that fits into your price range. you get equal amount of satisfaction from if you worked towards something more expensive but less effort to acheive.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 12 2002,13:46
If I work hard at a job that pays me enough to have a Mercedes and you don't because you chose to have an easier job, then don't whine and bitch that it's unfair if I have a Mercedes and you don't.My problem is with the people who want to work at a job that pays so little they can't afford any car at all because they 'enjoy' that job, but then they want me to give up half the money I make at my job because they also want a Mercedes.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 12 2002,14:08
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 11 April 2002,16:56) |
| Just for good measure... None of YOU are going to be paying welfare to ME so stfu about it. |
good to hear but I think we are beyond you at this point TTM.
Its now just a battle between the bleeding hearts and the people that understand reality as it truely is.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 12 2002,15:02
I had a friend who went to work from 9-5 everyday for six months for no money while the company he loved working for crumbled around him. Everybody told him to leave, but he loved the job and claimed it was more rewarding then money alone.He has since lost his lease and moved back in with his parents.
My advice is to find a way to get paid for doing what you love. A fufilling job doesn't pay the bills or get you any closer to retirement, last I checked that still takes cash. It always makes me laugh to see actors and sports stars in interviews saying how much they love what they do, and that they would do it for no money ...and then they renegotiate another 10 million dollars at the next contract signing.
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 12 2002,19:01
| Quote (Wiley @ 12 April 2002,09:02) |
| My advice is to find a way to get paid for doing what you love. |
That's why I manually masturbate caged animals for artificial insemination.
Posted by Nikita on Apr. 12 2002,19:14
| Quote (Beldurin @ 12 April 2002,14:01) |
| That's why I manually masturbate caged animals for artificial insemination. |
Hey, I know someone who actually did that ... she said that the rats ... "performed" ... better for her male co-worker.
I told her that either:
1) the rats were gay
2) her co-worker has more experience in the art jacking off
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 12 2002,21:50
| Quote (kuru @ 12 April 2002,13:46) |
| then don't whine and bitch that it's unfair if I have a Mercedes and you don't. |
No man under 40 would EVER want a mercedes
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 13 2002,01:48
::sigh:: this thread is showing such a lack of understanding about economics... there's too much here to argue against all the flawed reasoning, but here are some things that popped into my head while I was reading the posts...1. The heart of the capitalist economy lies in transactions, not money. Capitalism is essentially the barter system made much more efficient by using money as a generic representation of value.
Let's say Bob makes fancy gadgets, and you want one. You raise chickens for a living. Without money, you either have to hope that Bob happens to need chickens, or you have to trade your chickens with someone else who hopefully was something Bob wants. If not, you have to keep trading things until you finally get something that Bob will take in exchange for the gadget...
With money, you can sell your chickens to someone for money, and then use that money to buy Bob's gadget.
2. People like to talk about "upsetting the delicate balance" of the market. This is total bullshit - a functioning capitalist economy is extraordinarily robust. You could double the minimum wage right now, and the only thing that would happen is that poor people would make more money. There'd barely be a blip in the cost of goods. Modern manufacturing has insured that. Let's say your factory takes 10 workers, all making minimum wage (we'll assume it's $5/hour. to make the math easy). Your factory produces 1,000 widgets an hour. Your manufacturing cost per widget is $10. If the minimum wage is raised to $10/hour, you are incurring an extra $50 an hour in labor charges; therefore you have to raise the price of widgets by $50/1000=$0.05.
Do you really think a fucking nickel is going to break anyone?
About the only place that a big minimum wage increase would hurt is small businesses. Fortunately, Congress can include these funny things called "exemptions."
Finally, communism sucks because it requires a highly dogmatic, inflexible approach in order to maintain economic stability. Capitalism does not. There are plenty of "Pure Capitalism" zealots out there who are just as rigid and inflexible as the Communists. The difference is that if we had all the laissez-faire morons shot, the economy would continue to operate just fine. It would probably improve. Capitalism can handle regulation; in fact it performs better if it's competently managed (i.e. Alan Greenspan's running the show). The boom/bust cycles smooth out, and productivity increases as people stop worrying about going broke the next time the economy takes a shit.
So there.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 13 2002,01:58
is it just me or do some people have REALLY loose asses. they must because they pull the biggest turds right out of them and post them here.. The heart of the capitalist economy lies in transactions, not money. Capitalism is essentially the barter system made much more efficient by using money as a generic representation of value.
wrong. capitalism = capital (money)
free market economy = transactions
People like to talk about "upsetting the delicate balance" of the market. This is total bullshit - a functioning capitalist economy is extraordinarily robust. You could double the minimum wage right now, and the only thing that would happen is that poor people would make more money. There'd barely be a blip in the cost of goods. Modern manufacturing has insured that. Let's say your factory takes 10 workers, all making minimum wage (we'll assume it's $5/hour. to make the math easy). Your factory produces 1,000 widgets an hour. Your manufacturing cost per widget is $10. If the minimum wage is raised to $10/hour, you are incurring an extra $50 an hour in labor charges; therefore you have to raise the price of widgets by $50/1000=$0.05.
wrong. when you raise the minimum wage, the cost of all goods everywhere rises proportionally. those who make the lowest wages will always be the most poor, relatively. you can't create wealth out of nothing.
Do you really think a fucking nickel is going to break anyone?
now you're just making illogical statements based on emotions. so my answer is yes.
There are plenty of "Pure Capitalism" zealots out there who are just as rigid and inflexible as the Communists.
rigid and inflexible, in that they want nothing to be rigid and unflexible?
in fact it performs better if it's competently managed
i don't think so. i'll go digging around for the facts though before i whole heartedly say "wrong" again. i'm not like you in that i don't make assumptions and call them fact without backing them up.
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 13 2002,02:17
capitilsm in the form of busines requires more reulations and less ambiguous marketing laws. Look at enron to see where 14 billion dollars can appear out of nowhere Literally.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 14 2002,02:51
| Quote (CatKnight @ 12 April 2002,17:58) |
capitalism = capital (money)
free market economy = transactions
okay, time to consult the dictionary again....
capital
2a. Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
2b. Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
2c. Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: “ [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital” (George F. Will).
capitalism An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
looks like you're wrong as usual, ck. capital is materials and resources, which can include money. capitalism is based on a free market, which by your own definition = transactions.
those who make the lowest wages will always be the most poor, relatively. you can't create wealth out of nothing.
the first part is true. the second part is irrelevant. raising the minimum wage doesn't create wealth out of nothing; it simply alters the distribution of wealth. capitalism is a great system, but it doesn't always cut everyone a fair deal.
now you're just making illogical statements based on emotions. so my answer is yes.
emotional? yes. illogical? hardly. logic dictates the rules which determine a sound argument. it says nothing about emotion. just because you lack compassion and a sense of humanity, that does not imply that they are not valid premises.
rigid and inflexible, in that they want nothing to be rigid and unflexible?
huh? these people believe that any regulation is unacceptable. that's hardly what I'd call flexibility.
i'm not like you in that i don't make assumptions and call them fact without backing them up.
er, I hate to break this to you, but you're right up there with blackflag when it comes to making wild assumptions without backup, as well as making arguments that have no basis in the realities of human life.
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 14 2002,03:35
| Quote (Necromancer @ 12 April 2002,15:50) |
| No man under 40 would EVER want a mercedes |
I'm 24 and I'll take an SL600
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 14 2002,05:29
No man under 40 would EVER want a mercedes
Posted by veistran on Apr. 14 2002,05:34
< http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/slacker.html >
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 14 2002,07:21
| Quote (Necromancer @ 13 April 2002,23:29) |
| No man under 40 would EVER want a mercedes |
Ouch
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 14 2002,09:15
wait a minute, I think I missed something...YOU: "The heart of the capitalist economy lies in transactions, not money."
ME: "wrong. capitalism = capital (money)"
DICTIONARY: "Wealth in the form of money or property"
YOU: "Capitalism is essentially the barter system made much more efficient by using money as a generic representation of value."
ME: "free market economy = transactions"
DICTIONARY: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" (edited, you lied about the dictionary entry for capitalism).
To summarize:
You said something dumb.
I proved you wrong.
You proved me right and then called me wrong
as for this:
"raising the minimum wage doesn't create wealth out of nothing; it simply alters the distribution of wealth."
a) wrong. redistribution=income tax. minimum wage=creating wealth-->inflation
b) why would you want to redistribute wealth anyway?
oh yeah and just because I'm being logical doesn't mean I'm not being compassionate. However, the converse is FALSE.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 14 2002,10:18
| Quote (CatKnight @ 14 April 2002,01:15) |
ck :
I did not lie about the dictionary entry, and I do not appreciate the accusation. I copied and pasted the entries I felt were relevant; I did not edit them any further.
Anyway, we are obviously going to continue to accuse each other of twisting logic; we have been doing so for a long time. One of these days we should take this question to the people.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 14 2002,10:52
The two things i hate most about capatilism:1. i don't get a second chance to build a life. And before someone posts something to refute this, i think i know my fucked-up situation better than you do. I can't not drop out of highschool 7 years after it happened. I can try to make things better for myself, but i don't get a second chance to do things i now know i should have.
2. the 'importance' of higher education for non-technical jobs. This is closely related to my hate of the public school system, which churn out illiterate moronic fucks by the hundreds of thousands every year. If highschools weren't so fucking worthless, i wouldn't need a colledge deploma to prove my non-stupidity (shutup kuru). <sarcasm>Cause we all know only smart people graduate from colledges. Never met a dumb-as-a-box-of-locks waste of sperm with a nifty piece of paper to certify them as an expert in something that anyone with common sense and no specific field-related education could do........</sarcasm>
If the love of money is the root of all evil, then america truely is the Evil Empire so many forigners think it is.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 14 2002,20:46
DSL: "I copied and pasted the entries I felt were relevant;"yeah I just love it when people do that...
Blackflag: You're an idiot.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 14 2002,22:15
Wiley's thoughts on Capitalism ..derived from actually working in the last true bastion of Capitalism, the NYSE.Some DSL Quotes
| Quote |
| 2. People like to talk about "upsetting the delicate balance" of the market. This is total bullshit - a functioning capitalist economy is extraordinarily robust. |
Um ...what happens to the extraordinarily robust economy when the Fed lowers interest rates?
| Quote |
| You could double the minimum wage right now, and the only thing that would happen is that poor people would make more money. There'd barely be a blip in the cost of goods. |
Hmm ...didn't I bring this idea up when speaking of how to help the poor better themselves while not adversely affecting the economy as a whole? It seems to me that if the poor made more money and the cost of goods didn't go up too much then they would have more disposable income. Thus they would have the means to better themselves.
| Quote |
| About the only place that a big minimum wage increase would hurt is small businesses. Fortunately, Congress can include these funny things called "exemptions." |
I don't think so ...when there is more disposable money in the economy small businesses flourish. The cost of the added service and convenience imposed by the small business is paid by the consumer. The more money the customer base has the less these added costs will effect their purchasing decisions. In times of recession when there is less discretionary spending however, the giant corporations are the only ones with the quantity of scale to remain competitive.
| Quote |
| ...productivity increases as people stop worrying about going broke the next time the economy takes a shit. |
This is the sad truth about Capitalism; if you spent like there was no tomorrow we would all be better off. Saving for a rainy day takes money out of circulation ...thus causing people to fear a recession and start saving their money. Alas the money hording starts and it doesn't stop until the interest rates make it more worthwhile to buy big now then to save for later.
Some BF Quote
| Quote |
| 1. i don't get a second chance to build a life ... |
One of my favorite Donald Trump quotes comes as he was retelling a stroll through Central Park. At the time the Donald was 13 million dollars in debt. He tells of looking at a homeless person and thinking "That guy has 13 million more dollars to his name then I do" ...no second chance huh?
| Quote |
| 2. the 'importance' of higher education for non-technical jobs... |
See my post earlier in this thread; sometimes you got to play the game by it's rules ...even if it doesn't seem fair.
The one bad thing about Capitalism is the fact that in its design the rich will always become richer and the poor will become poorer. This is because current value is worth more then future value and the rich will have the option to leverage their current value to essentially buy more future value. This is called investing, and it doesn't just happen in the stock market. Take the movie Industry for example, they pay Tom Cruise 20 million to make a picture ...why? He doesn't need the money, surely a struggling actor who needed the money more would work harder ..some may even turn in a better performance. But the movie company has some extra cash, so they pay Tom Cruise his 20 million to essentially buy a large opening day ...thus securing more future profits. Even if the movie sucks ass. Now, I can write a movie that sucks ass ...I just lack the present worth to afford myself a future value that will cover the cost of my more advertising and distribution.
Now the really sad thing is that sometimes a bank can sit down and decide who gets even richer!! I was involved in a public offering for JetBlue last week and we all knew it would go up in value right away ...so what did the firm I work for do? We called our best clients and offered them the IPO stock ...thus making them free millions for nothing. (of course now the bank is hoping that they give us more of their money and become better customers) but my point is that it could have been any one of us that the firm decided to make a millionaire many times over ...but it wasn't you or I because we don't have enough money Already.
Capitalism can suck sometimes.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 15 2002,01:12
It's not your lack of a college degree that makes me think you're an idiot, BlackFlag.It's the fact that you come in here harping constantly about how smart you are, how much your life sucks, and instead of bettering yourself you call me a moron.
You can't go back and not drop out of high school, but you can go and get a GED and start moving forward instead of biting everyone's head off for your failure to do so in the last seven years.
I don't like you, BlackFlag, because you take no personal responsibility for your future. You only want to bitch at everyone else who has things that you don't about how you could never succeed even if you tried. But the most disgusting thing is that you flat out admit you won't try.
So go ahead, keep blaming the Jews and the Koreans for the utter shit you admit your life is, but don't bitch to me about it. You want my sympathies? Start clawing your way out of where you are. You might actually earn some respect.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 15 2002,03:10
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 14 April 2002,02:52) |
| 2. the 'importance' of higher education for non-technical jobs. This is closely related to my hate of the public school system, which churn out illiterate moronic fucks by the hundreds of thousands every year. If highschools weren't so fucking worthless, i wouldn't need a colledge deploma to prove my non-stupidity (shutup kuru). <sarcasm>Cause we all know only smart people graduate from colledges. Never met a dumb-as-a-box-of-locks waste of sperm with a nifty piece of paper to certify them as an expert in something that anyone with common sense and no specific field-related education could do........</sarcasm> If the love of money is the root of all evil, then america truely is the Evil Empire so many forigners think it is. |
I mostly agree. Unfortunately, there has to be some standard and we've got college degrees.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 15 2002,05:22
even a B.S. is not very meaningful. a long time ago, you could get a decent job with only a high school diploma. a college degree was something especially meaningful back then (go look and see what the average wage of a mechanical engineer in 1900...). Some time in the 70's the liberals got all emotional about a lot of minorities not graduating high school. To "help them out", they basically made a high school diploma worthless because almost everyone passed (except for blackflag, because he is beyond stupidity). At this point, everyone who wanted a decent job had to get a bachelors to be noticed. But because so many people were going to college now, the value of a B.S. degree became devalued. Now, if you don't have a B.S. then you can't do much at all. Furthermore, to get the really nifty jobs, you really need a masters or phd.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 15 2002,05:37
So, so dumb...
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 15 2002,12:39
Kuru: already have my GED, not that its worth a goddamn thing. there isn't a job in the world i can get with a GED that i couldn't get without one. Despite the fact that 50% of all highschool graduates couldn't pass a GED test, its fucking worthless. Im currently looking into computer training school, but i don't know if ill be able to scrape together enough cash to cover what loans/grants won't (assuming i can even get loans or grants.)Please don't put words in my mouth bitch. I don't blame jews and koreans for my shitty life (i blame my parents, and the miseducational system, and to a lesser extent myself), i blame them for pissing me off and generally annoying me when i have to interact with them.
Yuck Fou.
CK:
| Quote |
| Blackflag: You're an idiot. |
I know you are, but what am i?
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 15 2002,14:14
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 15 April 2002,07:39) |
| and to a lesser extent myself |
lesser?
Its your attitude that holds you back. You think that since the world delt you a shit hand it owes you something.
guess what? It dont owe you a thing. The only thing that holds people back in life is them. The only thing holding you back is you.
Quit your fucking pansy ass whining and change your life. If you dont want to make the effort to change it then end it.
Just quit whining about it.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 15 2002,14:42
I know you are, but what am i? a garbage man.
I know you are, but what am i?
a garbage man.
I know you are, but what am i?
a garbage man.
and so forth
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 15 2002,16:21
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 15 2002,16:29
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 15 April 2002,04:39) |
| Im currently looking into computer training school, but i don't know if ill be able to scrape together enough cash to cover what loans/grants won't (assuming i can even get loans or grants.) |
Does looking into mean daydreaming about? Damnit, take some action ...don't look into it. Get off your ass and go get a shitty job as a computer tech at some company that has a halfway decent IT department. Hell, become a tech at your local Best Buy. These jobs almost always offer IT training courses at no cost to you (mostly because the jobs don't pay much). Once you get you certificate of completion then quit that job for a better job that offers better training courses.
And for the record I only have a high school diploma ...hasn't really held me back much
But, if I ever find that I need to go get a degree to get a job that I really want then I will go get one ...without bitching about how meaningless it is. I know it's a piece of paper that society imposes a value on that may not correctly represent your past intellectual endeavors .....but hell, a hundred dollar bill is just a piece of paper that society imposes a value on that may not correctly represent your past labor endeavors.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 15 2002,18:16
In other words, you're still refusing to take personal responsibility for where you, BlackFlag, are today in 2002 and where you are going in the future.It's all a blame game with you, and you're never going to accept that you, above all else, are the determining factor of your fate. You are not the only person who had a tough life, nor are you the only one who ever got 'screwed' by the educational system. You're not the only one who has to worry about making ends meet while getting educated, and you sure as hell aren't the only one who can't just write a check and pay for schooling.
You are someone who sits around and bitches about these things instead of getting off your ass and doing something about it. So you can call me a 'bitch' all you want, but you've got nobody to blame for your continued state of existence other than yourself. You are responsible for your own life. Get used to that idea, because that's the way reality (where all of us adults live) works.
You want an education? You take loans, grants, scholarships. You bust your ass for it, and you get what you want. Successful people are so because they grab for the brass ring and don't give a damn that they might fall flat on their face 70 or 100 times before they actually get a hand-hold. You don't even try. You just sit around blaming everybody but yourself for the fact that you are still sitting around on your ass refusing to take any proactive steps whatsoever to improve your life.
Get this, BlackFlag, because this is why people who succeed do so:
It is never too late to be what you might've been.
I teach people on a daily basis who have a shittier lot in life than you do, who fight and claw their way out of whatever circumstances of life they're suffering. The difference between them and you, and the reason I respect them, is they're doing something. They, like you, know it's an uphill battle. But unlike you, they showed up with climbing gear.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 15 2002,22:21
Community College lets anyone in. You can get a ton of stuff from FAFSA (and other gov't aids) if you're self supportive and have a low-moderate income. There a ton of jobs you can get w/ just -one- semester of training. You can then get more training and thus more earning potential.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 15 2002,23:04
| Quote (Wiley @ 14 April 2002,14:15) |
Wiley, thank you for understanding economics
Just a couple little things...
Um ...what happens to the "extraordinarily robust" economy when the Fed lowers interest rates?
The economy booms... or if they drop it too much, inflation booms instead
So much money goes through the Feds every day that they are the economy's main throttle. I think that proves my point rather than undermining it... the "delicate balance" isn't delicate at all. To really affect things one way or another you have to alter the movement of trillions of dollars. Something like the minimum wage or the personal income tax rate don't alter the economy enough to make much of a difference.
Remember this next time the Conservatives start crowing that they need to drop taxes to "stimulate the economy," or that raising the minimum wage will plunge us into a recession. Lowering the tax rate does little other than plunge the government into debt. Raising the minimum wage does little other than put more money into poor people's pockets.
Tax rates and the minimum wage are nothing compared to the Power of the Feds.
I don't think so ...when there is more disposable money in the economy small businesses flourish...
I think you misunderstood my point a bit. A large jump in the minimum wage hurts small businesses simply because they're much more labor-intensive than a large corporation. That doesn't mean that they can't handle an increase in the minimum wage, it just means you need to increase it much more slowly for them than for a big corporation to give them time to adjust. Double the minimum wage tomorrow, and large corporations will hardly notice... but a small business may be unable to pay its employees, in which case it's out of business.
But yes, having more disposable income will benefit small business in the long run. Most people prefer dealing with smaller businesses because they like the personalized service that small businesses provide. However, people on a budget will often purchase items from large corporations because they're cheaper. But more disposable income = people feel richer = quality, service, and other "luxuries" factor into buying decisions more; the amount of money spent at smaller businesses goes up.
All of which horrifies people like CatKnight... to them, efficiency always trumps culture.
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 15 2002,23:18
you do not need a masters or phd to get a job unless you want to become A: a lawyer or B: work for nasa or some EXTREMELY high paid job. or just do research.Your education does not make you who you are. My brother went to art college to just fuck about but he now spends his life travelling around the world because he works there to pay for his travel xpenses.
Most jobs will declare any degree regardless of specialism bacuse they realise you wanted to become something worthwhile so they will train you.
the bullshit teachers and lecturese tell you about NEEDING to keep working for higher education is just that bullshit. Unless you want to do somethign specifically and you know what that is you can just do go as far as you feel is right with education and leave it at that. You shouldnt be telling people that unless they become a PHD master they will live on the street. Its about having the attitude to want to work somewhere
"But if two people have degrees and one is a first and the other a 2nd the first will get the job."
Bollox the person who goes in to the interview room proclaims that he's the man for the job and is willing to bust his balls to make this company a success will get it.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,00:41
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 15 April 2002,18:04) |
| Remember this next time the Conservatives start crowing that they need to drop taxes to "stimulate the economy," or that raising the minimum wage will plunge us into a recession. Lowering the tax rate does little other than plunge the government into debt. Raising the minimum wage does little other than put more money into poor people's pockets. |
Lowering the tax rates does mean that the rich get more money back than the poor. The rich are also the most likely people to take that money, reinvest it into some sort of cash producing enterprise, and create more wealth with it.
If I'm a billionaire, and I pay a million dollars less in taxes this year than I usually do, I'm going to do with it what all rich people love to do: use it to make more money.
I'm going to invest it somewhere, or perhaps if I'm the owner of a large company, use it to improve and expand my company so that I can take in even more revenue. What does that mean to the poor people? If I'm expanding my operations, I need more workers. I have to create more jobs. I take people who were working for me, move them up a level and flatten out the heirarchy so that I have managers for my new plant, and then I hire more workers. I do this so I can produce more goods, which I can sell on the open market and gain myself more revenue.
How do I know this works? Because it's been done hundreds of times. Tax amnesties and tax cuts have always lead to increased production. Look at sales tax amnesties - people crawl out of the woodwork to buy things, especially big ticket items like cars. Why? Because their dollars have more purchasing power. A car that in real dollars cost them $10,000 with 7% tax added to that, total $10,700 now costs them a flat $10,000 and they can take their $700 and spend it elsewhere. Increased demand means moving along the supply demand curves, and supply has to increase to meet demand. Manufacturers aren't stupid, so they start producing more knowing that it'll sell, which means that they need more workers to produce more products which the people are buying. Well, these manufacturers need capital to invest in expanding their operations. Where can they get it? Loans from banks, I suppose, but who really wants to pay all that interest? This is where income tax cuts help the economy. They've now got more of the money they earned in their pocket - and they want it to be out there working for them making more money - so they invest in expanding operations to meet the higher demand for the products they make.
Unless of course you think taxing the employer more and forcing them to pay higher minimum wage which in turn leads to far less money in their pockets at the end of the fiscal year is a good way to get them to want to expand operations.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 16 2002,00:48
Necromancer : how very true. the biggest jump in pay and opportunities comes from having a bachelor's degree. in most fields, a master's or Ph.D. won't get you much more, it will just help you advance faster because you are that much more competent.the exception, as CK and Kuru have both noted, are the fields of engineering and science.
as for the choice of major, it doesn't matter much - science and engineering excepted. consider me - my degree is in English, yet I work in IT. Actually, that English degree has turned out to be a real advantage - managers figure that ANYONE who loves computers and has spent a lot of time learning them can handle the technical aspects of the job. What they really want is someone who can communicate well, because that makes the difference between an employee who just gets the job done and one who can explain why he did it that way.
It's also benefitted me b/c I'm not stuck in IT as much as I would be with a CS degree. I can walk out of the industry and into another field pretty easily. In fact, I'm doing just that... see my other post titled "DSL makes a career decision."
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 16 2002,00:49
"looking into it" means im sorting through the long list of companies that offer computer training in my area, eliminating the ones that had their grand openeing last week, eliminating programs that will take 2 years to teach me stuff i either already know or could learn in 2 months, and eliminating locations i can't get to by public transportation.On the subject of me not taking responsibility: I take responsibility for the fact that i haven't thus far exibited the drive or motivation to work my way up from the lowly economic strata i found myself in since birth, but not for being there in the first place. I should have clawed my way out of this hole a long time ago, but i sure as fuck didn't dig the hole, or throw myself in it. I will take responsibility for what i feel i am responsible for, but no more.
If you ask all the bleeding-heart librals, they'll tell you "equall protectin under the law" means everyone should get an equall chance (though conservatives like myself would dissagree with this....) I didn't get the same chance at life that someone born in a better neighborhood, in a better family, or in a better social/ecconomic strata got. Does America owe me anything? I don't know, america, you fucking figure it out, and then tell me. Doesn't fucking matter to me either way; I had enough of america's 'charity' growing up on welfare. Fuck america trying to help me.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 16 2002,01:31
kuru, you have a point, but the effect of the personal income tax is *much* smaller than the effect of the Federal interest rate. That's why it's foolish to diddle with the tax rate to increase productivity; there is a better alternative that doesn't plunge the government into debt or force it to cut back on programs that are truly beneficial.I'm not saying the federal government spends all of its money on worthwhile things, or that I love paying taxes. But I'd rather the government kept tax rates steady and focused on how best to spend that money rather than trying to force it to become more efficient by depriving it of revenue. There are some things the government does much better than private industry ever could.
For instance, I took BART into San Francisco yesterday. It's a publicly owned mass transit system that's a cross between a subway and a long-distance passenger train. Because it was originally funded with taxpayer money, the fares are nice and cheap because they don't have to pay off the cost of building the system. They just have to cover operations. It only costs $4 to get from Concord to SF's city center - a distance of about 35 miles, which includes going through the Oakland/Berkeley hills and underneath the San Francisco bay. The stations and the trains are clean, trains run every 10 minutes, there's plenty of security (they have a few plainclothes police on every train), you get to kick back and enjoy the scenery instead of fighting with traffic, and you save a shitload of money on parking.
There are privately funded transit options, but they cost a lot more than $4 and they're not as much fun. At least on BART you can get up and walk around and strech your legs.
Right outside the BART station is the beginning of the cable car lines, which are also publicly funded. They are seriously one of the coolest public transit systems ever devised... they're like riding a roller coaster, except that you get off at a different place than you get on. There's NOTHING like hanging off the side of one as you cruise down a ridiculously steep hill. I took it all the way to Fisherman's Wharf, about 3 miles up and down enormous hills, and I had a stupid grin on my face the entire way.
A boring, smelly taxi runs about $10 for the same ride I took. I paid $6 for an all-day pass that also let me ride the bus and the underground subway system. If private industry ran the cable cars, they'd charge more than a taxi for a one-time ride, just because they could!!!!
Anyway, I'm rambling a little, but man... there's a lot of markets where private industry is *much* better than the government, but for some things public ownership is by far the better solution. So why try and shave it down to nothing by making it go broke?
As for sales taxes... I don't like 'em simply because they're regressive. They hit poor people much harder than the rich. At the same time, people don't like getting hit with a fat state income tax on top of the Federal income tax, so I'm not real sure what the solution is to the sales tax...
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 16 2002,04:52
/me gives up on this thread 
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,05:34
The problem is you're both trying to contain all the effects (or at least the grand effect) of a tax cut or what have you into one central affect on the economy. It can't be done. Cutting taxes, increasing the minimum wage, and increasing gov't spening all have multiple affects on the economy.Oh, and about the "robust ecnomoy": If you fluctuate the interest rate and -vast- changes happen, the economy is not that robust. If it were, it would sty mostly the same regardless of what happens. The ideal economy would do this, I suppose, becasue people would spend all their money all at once (or save for one big thing, like a house...)
edit: two out of three a/effects used properly ain't bad...
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 16 2002,06:01
| Quote |
| DSL wrote: Remember this next time the Conservatives start crowing that they need to drop taxes to "stimulate the economy," or that raising the minimum wage will plunge us into a recession. Lowering the tax rate does little other than plunge the government into debt. Raising the minimum wage does little other than put more money into poor people's pockets. |
you fool
| Quote |
| If you ask all the bleeding-heart librals, they'll tell you "equall protectin under the law" means everyone should get an equall chance (though conservatives like myself would dissagree with this....) I didn't get the same chance at life that someone born in a better neighborhood, in a better family, or in a better social/ecconomic strata got. |
actually the bleeding-heart liberals want exactly what their name says--equal OUTCOME under the law, which is just COMMUNISM. thats why they are < banning sat's >, < encouraging mothers to divorce and go/stay on welfare >, < preventing tax cuts >, and other such nonsense.
oh yeah and blackflag, you had exactly the same chance as everyone else. you just didn't start with the same initial conditions as others who are more fortunate.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,06:21
I would just like to say there's no reason to further tax cuts other than to pull votes. There are other ways of "strengthening the economy."In addition, staying married to someone you hate is pointless (oh wait, it's for the good of the country, right?). The kid is just going to wind up with severe problems becasue of his/her screwed up situation at home and move down to FL where he/she will then enter the trash bin of America. He/She will then repeat the cycle by doing the same thing themselves. A few bucks off of your/my back to limit the number of total fuckwits in the country is fine, imho.
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 16 2002,06:24
/me goes back to reading his finance texts... and stops listening to all the drivel.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 16 2002,07:07
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 15 April 2002,21:34) |
| Oh, and about the "robust ecnomoy": If you fluctuate the interest rate and -vast- changes happen, the economy is not that robust. |
The only reason small adjustments to the prime rate affect the economy so much is because the amount of $$$ that flows through the banks on a daily basis is absolutely staggering. I don't have exact figures on this, but I would venture to guess that an amount equal to the entire US money supply circulates through the banks every few days. That's why small changes in the prime rate can make large changes to the economy - a variance of 0.25% seems small, but compound it a hundred or a thousand times and it becomes huge.
Imagine that you lose oil in your car at a rate of 0.25% per cycle - you'd run out of oil pretty fast. That doesn't mean your car is delicate.
Again, the money gathered by personal income tax represents such a small amount of the US money supply that adjusting the tax rate a few percent either way barely makes a difference. That's why it's foolish to use the tax rate to try and effect the economy - why do that when adjusting the prime rate is much more effective? It just doesn't make sense, although the Conservatives would have you believe otherwise.
Of course, they're the ones with the biggest pocketbooks to protect...
I notice that CatKnight has been reduced to calling me names; I suppose that means he knows his argument has been shot to hell. Don't feel too bad, CK; it's bound to happen if you're proud to be a parrot... Squawk! Taxes are bad! Squawk! Squawk! Liberals suck! Squawk!
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,13:24
Actually, DSL, income tax cuts work because they enable people to control the flow of their own money. The only sector that suffers under low taxes is big government, which is exactly the thing Liberals don't want to happen.Instead of requiring people to come up with 'a good reason' that they want to keep (in the higher tax brackets) more than 60% of their own money in their pockets, I'm asking the question the other way. What good reason exists for the government to consume almost half of my paycheck every two weeks?
As for public vs. private sector, yes, the train usually costs less than the taxi because the train devotes less resources (and therefore less cost) to moving each individual passenger, so they pay less to ride the train as a group than they do to ride a taxi alone. If you take the same taxi ride that costs you $10 to make by yourself, and you put 3 people in that taxi, it's now cost you about $3.33 per person. Of course all of that is moot to me, because public transportation (be it taxi, train, bus) is more expensive than driving my own car to work every day. Considering the ~5$ per day I would spend riding public transportation, and the ~20$ per week I spend to keep my car running (and I'm being generous, gas only costs me $10/week, so I'm leaving $10/week for 'maintenance issues'
, I'm saving $5 every work week, which means at the end of a year I have $260 in my pocket to spend on whatever I choose.But, I suppose that's really irrelevant, because all those 'taxpayer funds' for all those public transportation systems you take advantage of are also sucking money out of my paycheck. Imagine the price of the train if the millions of working people like me who do not use public transportation were not forced by the government to subsidize it anyway.
That's why I have a problem with your tax ideas. Because under your impression of 'fair' taxes, I'm paying out almost half my salary for services I never use so that you, who wants everything 'cheap' don't have to pay the full cost of getting yourself to work. I'm being ripped off.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 16 2002,14:16
2 wordsflat tax.
17-18% no matter what.
easy to figure out. less than what we are paying now. Tax law books become one page.
Ok, so the unemployment rate would go up a little when all the rats at the IRS and the tax lawyers lost their jobs. Personaly they can all get a 28 cent severence package.
Just my thoughts on the tax thing. Make it simple, keep it simple.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,15:09
KISS principle.I'd pay a flat rate 15% if they'd just leave me alone with all this EITC and deductions and crap.
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 16 2002,15:59
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 11 April 2002,08:24) |
| The jist is, Where do you get the modivation for it all? Why are you slaving away, just to slave away even more? Why is this an exceptable solution? |
I grew up in a prejudice rural area that deemed women only good for being a slave to the man she gave her heart to and rearing his children. I returned to college the summer of 1995 with a lot of encouragement from close friends. Quite honestly, I didn’t think I was college material.
Since then, I've spent many weeks working 20 hours per day--I work full time and attend college an average of 8 credit hours per semester. I'm exhausted quite often. What motivates me is a question I've been asked at my job many times. The reply I've given my co-workers is that something that is tough to do is sometimes very worth the sacrifice. Since I was raped when I was a young woman, I made a pledge to myself that if I was ever able to get the right grades in school, I'd go to law school and become a researcher. Yes, this despite my thoughts that I was not college material. I’ve had to overcome a lot to get to where I am at currently. I have turned my anger about what happened to me early in life into a productive quest.
How can I, one woman, make a difference? I recall Susan B Anthony, Florence Nightingale, and many other courageous women who bravely did what they thought was necessary and lived outside of what society told them they had to do. Susan B Anthony was jailed for her work in the suffrage movement. Look at history though and the impact on society--U.S. Women gained the right to vote in 1920. Nightingale brought forth cleaner medical conditions. She started something, then future generations took her torch and moved forward with knowledge and procedures--think about it. She brought with her others who believed in her cause. Whether you're an engineer, nuclear physicist, photographer, or whatever your field is, someone in the past influenced how your job is done, and current thinking in your particular field.
Perhaps the monetary reward will be slight compared to what I'm going to pay for law school and getting that PhD. BUT, I fervently hope the rewards will be reaped for a woman sitting in a courtroom in the future. THAT MOTIVATES ME. No one ought to have to sit in a courtroom after being brutally raped, and be re-victimized in front of her rapist. That just ticks me off.
…I’m going to go do my school work. I feel refreshed.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,16:20
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 15 April 2002,23:07) |
| Imagine that you lose oil in your car at a rate of 0.25% per cycle - you'd run out of oil pretty fast. That doesn't mean your car is delicate. |
Maybe not, but it sure is sucking oil like a piece of crap.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,16:31
| Quote (kuru @ 16 April 2002,05:24) |
| Quote |
| Actually, DSL, income tax cuts work because they enable people to control the flow of their own money. The only sector that suffers under low taxes is big government, which is exactly the thing Liberals don't want to happen. |
Cutting government spending will decrease GDP all the same. Give one, take another.
Also, lets do a bit of math.
A makes a nice round number: $100,000/year
B also makes a nice round number: $10,000/year
The tax rate is 10% (another nice round number).
A loses $10,000 to taxes.
B loses $1,000 to taxes.
A has $90,000 to live on. A huge number compared to the $9,000 that B has to live on.
You see, even tho these "flat taxes" seem equal across the board, it doesn't work that way. Losing 10% or 50% or 99% of your income means less and less the more money you have.
Kuru wants all her money. Great, so do all of us. However, we're trying to run a society here. Things need to be taken and things are given. Just because you spent ten thousand years in school doesn't mean you should be placed on some pedestal. We can't look up people in the phone book and say, "Alright, you road the bus this many times, and went to a park this many times so you own this much money." That's stupid, and if you think that's how it should work you amazingly disillusioned. I say suck it up and take one for the team.
Have you factored car insurance into the cost of running your vehicle? That's sure to bump your average cost/week up. What about the base price (or your car payments if you don't own it already)? Not everyone can afford to have their own vehicle and you want to make public transportation more expensive becasue rich people don't use it. Unfathomable. Without people working minimum wage jobs, everyone would be shit out of luck. Jebus, the world doesn't revolve around the rich, it revolves around the poor because there are a fuckload more of them.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 16 2002,17:50
| Quote |
| Things need to be taken and things are given. |
why? why do you have this need to force equal outcomes? some people work harder then others, it's that simple.
btw since russia instituted a flat tax of 13%, their economy has been booming 5% a year...
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,17:55
TaxMan, what you seem to want is 'equality of outcome'. If A earns 100,000$ a year, why shouldn't we take more than 10% of it away from A?Because A earned it.
Why does B have any claim at all to any of the money A earned? I would really like to know why you think that B deserves to have more money in B's pocket than B earned.
That's my problem with all these socialist approaches. They punish those who have done more work and reward those who haven't. There's no incentive for me to work as hard as I do under your plan, because you're just going to take what I earn and give it to someone else.
Why do you think other people are entitled to the money I earn?
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 16 2002,18:11
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 16 April 2002,11:31) |
| You see, even tho these "flat taxes" seem equal across the board, it doesn't work that way. Losing 10% or 50% or 99% of your income means less and less the more money you have. |
Its money i have. My money.
Why should some some low life fucknugget have any claim to money i earn?
Did he pay for my school? did he pay for my abilities? did he pay for the experience i have earned?
So, since Black Flag wants to bitch at the world and work at a 7-11 because he does not want to change his life i have to give him some of my money?
And you find this fair?
And people wonder why i think humanity is to stupid to live and should mostly be exterminated.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 16 2002,18:27
Hey, fuck you. I refuse to be used as your example of what's wrong with someone's socialist ideas. I never asked for a fucking handout.You bastards have finaly beat some sense into me, and im startnig to work towards improving my life, so fuck off with your BlackFlag is too lazy to earn as much as i do bullshit.
Posted by Bozeman on Apr. 16 2002,18:43
| Quote (CatKnight @ 15 April 2002,10:42) |
| I know you are, but what am i? a garbage man. I know you are, but what am i? a garbage man. I know you are, but what am i? a garbage man. and so forth |
Ah, yes, but Bart breaks the cycle with "Takes one to know one!"
I always try to help Simpson's quotes whenever I can.
As for this argument, I'm personally FOR types of welfare that include food stamps, soup kitchens, and incentives for hiring the extremely poor. Those who have absolutely NO money still need to eat, and as much as I belive in Darwinsm, I can't say these people deserve to starve. I don't know much about economics so I'll stay out of that firefight so I don't get slammed on both sides for saying something wrong.
"I'd GLADLY pay my taxes, and MORE when I could, if I knew it would help people." -Jello Biafra
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,18:44
Good for you BF. Make sure that you fill out the FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) as soon as possible. They're due by April 26 to ensure aid for the 2002 - 2003 academic year, and the grants are awarded on a need-basis.
The less you earn, the more student aid you get. Contact the Financial Aid office at whatever schools you consider, and don't think of it as a 'handout'. Grants are the government's way of investing in your brain. They bank on the idea that you're going to come out of there marketable, get a good job, and pay more taxes.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 16 2002,18:58
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 16 April 2002,13:27) |
| You bastards have finaly beat some sense into me, and im startnig to work towards improving my life, so fuck off with your BlackFlag is too lazy to earn as much as i do bullshit. |
and people told me that being a bastard would neve help anyone.
Glad to hear that your mind can be changed.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 16 2002,19:26
| Quote |
| I never asked for a fucking handout. |
yeah but did you take any?
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,19:30
Whatever. Everyone can't be rich, it's just not feisable (esp. in capitalism). Why so few people come out of poverty, go to college, and get high paying jobs? I'm sure you're quick to concede that all of these people just need to work harder and everyone can do it. Very easy to say. Very. All this bullshit about "my money" is just that, bullshit. One percent of the population controls how many percentage points of wealth in the economy? And that means that -ninety-nine- percent of the population is too stupid ot too unmotivated to work up that ladder? Sorry, no. If that were the case, homo sapiens would have died out long ago.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,19:40
Don't preach to me about poor people, because I grew up dirt poor. No cable TV, no brand name clothes, no car when I turned 16. I got out of it because I worked my ass off and climbed out of it.
I worked hard, I got into college, I sacrificed, I incurred debt, I fought for scholarships, I got a few grants, and I made myself what I am today.
And you better damn well believe I'm not just going to turn around and hand everything that I worked for to someone else.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 16 2002,19:44
here we go again...[statistics rant]
just because 1% of the population has 9x% of the wealth DOES NOT mean that they "took it away" from poor people.
[/rant]
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,19:48
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 April 2002,11:44) |
| just because 1% of the population has 9x% of the wealth DOES NOT mean that they "took it away" from poor people. |
You obviously didn't read a single thing of what I wrote.
I never said that anywhere.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,19:51
And just who the hell do you think hires the 9x% of the people who aren't the wealthiest in the country?You seem to live under the delusion that we can all be the CEO. Reality dictates otherwise. If we are all managers, there are no doers. If there are no doers, nothing gets done. If nothing gets done, there is no money made. If no money is made........
WE ALL STARVE TO DEATH.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,20:02
So why do you insist on making life harder for the 'doers' since they are so obviously neccessary?
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,20:09
I'm not. I think they should also keep most of what they earn and only pay in taxes what is absolutely necessary for the government to function. What I don't agree with is taking money out of the pockets of people who earned it to redistribute it into the pockets of those who didn't.
That's socialism, and it always fails.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 16 2002,20:13
no, we want to give the doers the best environment to live and work to do what needs to get done. raising minimum wage makes their life harder in the long run. see, you are attempting to apply common sense and emotion to something much more complicated. you naturally think that if you raise the minimum wage, they will make more money, and have better lives. unfortunately it doesn't work that way. if you raise the minimum wage then economic forces will actually make their situation worse.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,20:17
Ten posts back you (kuru) said you didn't think you should have to pay taxes dealing w/ public transportation because, in essence, you are rich enough to afford your own vehicle. If people just stopped paying taxes on what they didn't use, we'd have no park system, no public transportation (becasue it would cost $20 a buss ride or more) and no (a ton of other things I can't think of). That makes life harder for the working class.Also, redistributing wealth gives more moeny to people who need to spend it more and it just goes back into the economy, increasing production (which is why cutting taxes isn't neccessary to increase production).
Posted by kuru on Apr. 16 2002,20:26
I don't think transportation on buses and trains should be government subsidized. I never will think that. You might have an argument if people could only take trains and buses for working purposes, but the reason I disagree with paying for them is that I'm also helping pay for someone to ride to a movie, to the mall, to an amusement park...I am willing to pay for things like public education because I believe them to be an investment in the future. I want accountability though, and the ability to decide that a school or school district isn't getting the job done and revamp it.
What you seem to think is that those who make more deserve to part with large portions of their income simply because they earn more income. I completely disagree with that kind of socialist wealth redistribution. That doesn't create progress, it doesn't make anyone grow, it just increases dependence on a large bureaucracy. Guess who loves that? Bureaucrats.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 16 2002,20:26
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 16 April 2002,08:31) |
| Jebus, the world doesn't revolve around the rich, it revolves around the poor because there are a fuckload more of them. |
If that's the case then I think the poor are doing a wonderful job with the world ...I can only hope that they keep holding themselves back so that I will continue to look like a good investment to my boss.
Hehe ...I often imagine what the world would be like if the poor actually used their numbers and voted for once.
Here's another thought ...there are more ants then people! (I mean ...if we're just going by numbers and all
)
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,20:29
At least kuru realizes the working class is neccessary, Wiley...
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 16 2002,20:39
I chatted with a 20 year old gal last March about voting. She said "my one vote won't count for anything." Every vote counts. With a group of people--say 18 to 22 year olds--voting, they can be one big collective force to reckon with. It's a freedom... use it I say. Everyone ought to vote. That is where you show your voice in the U.S. If you don't like what government is doing, vote. Call your representative to have your say in whatever matter.Taxman... where do you live now and where are you from?
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 16 2002,20:40
| Quote (kuru @ 16 April 2002,12:26) |
| Quote |
| I don't think transportation on buses and trains should be government subsidized. I never will think that. You might have an argument if people could only take trains and buses for working purposes, but the reason I disagree with paying for them is that I'm also helping pay for someone to ride to a movie, to the mall, to an amusement park... |
So basically you want to have your cake and eat it, too. That doesn't happen anywhere (except totalitarian gov'ts).
| Quote |
| I am willing to pay for things like public education because I believe them to be an investment in the future. I want accountability though, and the ability to decide that a school or school district isn't getting the job done and revamp it. |
That's why you get to vote. Or, you could have been a teacher (hm, not enough money for you?).
| Quote |
| What you seem to think is that those who make more deserve to part with large portions of their income simply because they earn more income. I completely disagree with that kind of socialist wealth redistribution. That doesn't create progress, it doesn't make anyone grow, it just increases dependence on a large bureaucracy. Guess who loves that? Bureaucrats. |
It makes people with less money grow. It doesn't make -you- grow, but you already have the means.
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 16 2002,20:43
the economy is driven by greed. the more i want to earn, the more i work at moving people out of my way. i want that money, and will work harder to get it...i value the lowest class of workers more than anything, because it's them who get my ideas in motion. i believe in paying them more.. the better i reward those individuals, the more they want to work, the more money they produce me, the more money i have to give them... granted i'm 1 out of 10000000000000 to actually pay over what people are worth, because i believe in riches for all.. but i -will- have my piece of the pie before anyone gets a taste.
Catknight said it best with the minimum wage quotes.. if i -have- to pay more to my employee's.. i -have- to charge more to the consumer to earn my level of profit i want, and -will- receive. there'a ton of other factors too.. just wanted to highlight that one.
some here think the harder they work, the less ground they seem to cover.. that's only true with the way oyu handle your own money you've earned...
i also won't get started on taxes... it's not how much we pay in.. it's how they are uised that makes our government here in america bastards.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 16 2002,20:47
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 April 2002,12:13) |
| you naturally think that if you raise the minimum wage, they will make more money, and have better lives. unfortunately it doesn't work that way. if you raise the minimum wage then economic forces will actually make their situation worse. |
I just think it is only fair that the minimum wage keep up with inflation and current costs of goods and services.
I mean ...I may be an asshole, but at least when I belittle a homeless person I want to make sure that they had a fighting chance. Anything else would just be unsportsmanlike. What kind of sick sadistic ass would want to watch the Lakers take on insert any team in the WNBA here ...it just wouldn't be right.
And can you be a bit more clear on what forces we are talking about here?
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 16 2002,20:54
Making the minimum wage higher raises prices on goods and services so that the employers can pay the minimum wage
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 16 2002,20:58
| Quote (CycleLady @ 16 April 2002,12:54) |
| Making the minimum wage higher raises prices on goods and services so that the employers can pay the minimum wage |
you forgot ot add "and keep the same level of profit in the company."
companies make enough to handle a $10 minimum wage... but every high member of that company would loose half his salary... not going to happen.
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 16 2002,21:04
| Quote (EvilGenius @ 16 April 2002,14:58) |
Ok... yes
Making the minimum wage higher raises prices on goods and services so that the employers can pay the minimum wage and keep the same level of profit in the company
I stand corrected
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 16 2002,21:56
don't worry, kuru, you don't pay for our public transportation out here. it's funded by sales taxes - county sales taxes, for that matter. When the BART system was originally devised, all the counties in the Bay Area voted on a sales tax increase to fund it (I think it added 1% to the State sales tax.) The counties who approved the tax increase got BART. Those that didn't approve it didn't get it. And the counties that turned it down are now kicking themselves, 'cause they have to pay a LOT more now to get BART... and they want it. It sounds like public transit in your area is a joke. Same deal in my home town... we have a bus, but there's no point in taking it if you own a car. The situation in SF is different. Public transit is NECESSARY. Driving to SF isn't expensive in terms of gas and the $2 bridge toll (our bridges are funded entirely by tolls), but driving in SF is a nightmare and the cost of parking is ridiculous ($20 a day or more). So tens of thousands of businessmen/women ride BART every day instead of driving.
The sales tax increase for BART expired a couple years ago. BART could have continued to operate just fine without it, but we voted it back in so the system could be expanded... tax increases in this state require a 2/3rds majority, so that should show you how overwhelmingly popular the system is.
As for the flat tax - no. The tax code could use some simplification, to be sure, but a flat tax is regressive. It hurts the poor a lot harder than it hits the rich, because the poor spend a much higher proportion of their income on basic needs.
If you're pissed off that almost half your paycheck is gone... I'd say the thing to complain about is Social Security. Now THAT is a lousy system.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,00:11
| Quote (CycleLady @ 16 April 2002,07:54) |
| Making the minimum wage higher raises prices on goods and services so that the employers can pay the minimum wage |
| Quote |
| Websters: Inflation - an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services resulting in a continuing rise in the general price level |
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,00:49
Your point is not made, CK. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the money supply or availability of credit, and thus does not contribute to inflation. Furthermore, as I've already shown, it barely affects the price of goods. Most people in this country make a lot more than minimum wage anyway, so raising the minimum wage raises the average cost of labor by a very small amount. The effect of raising the minimum wage is simply that the lowest-paid workers make a little more, and the gap between rich and poor closes up a bit.
But isn't that what you're really afraid of?
Posted by Uberkommando on Apr. 17 2002,01:00
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 16 April 2002,18:49) |
| But isn't that what you're really afraid of? |
Yes. That and clowns.
But seriously, dsl's right.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,01:03
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 16 April 2002,16:49) |
| Your point is not made, CK. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the money supply or availability of credit, and thus does not contribute to inflation. |
I was just about to type that.
Posted by EvilGenius on Apr. 17 2002,01:21
minimum wage is a small factor in the nation's money problem.. raising it doens't increase consumer purchasing power... (that doens't mean he or she is able to buy more shit) it means they're money is not worth more than what they wish to purchase. lowering minimum wage would make the idiots that make minimum wage believe they're worthless.. so it's bad both ways around.. it just needs to fucking stay where it is...minimum wage discussion is done, imho.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,01:34
| Quote (Wiley @ 16 April 2002,17:03) |
| I was just about to type that. |
goddamn, it's nice to have another parrot hunter around here! how do you like 'em, broiled or barbequed?
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 17 2002,02:05
Voteing is a joke. The last person i voted for is Dole, and i will never vote again. Its a fucking joke. Why is our fucking political system based on who can look most sincerely into the camera while speaking in perfect sound bytes?
Posted by RadioActive on Apr. 17 2002,02:15
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 16 April 2002,21:05) |
| Voteing is a joke. The last person i voted for is Dole, and i will never vote again. Its a fucking joke. Why is our fucking political system based on who can look most sincerely into the camera while speaking in perfect sound bytes? |
why did bush win then?
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 17 2002,03:40
What most people fail to realize, is that voting in your local elections is far more usefull than voting for the national ones. Yes, voting for president probably won't have very direct effect on your life. Voting in your county, city, and state elections, however, will.
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,03:47
raising minimum wage = higher prices on goodsinflation -> rise in prices on goods
higher prices on goods = rise in prices on goods
raising minimum wage -> inflation
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,04:22
| Quote |
| Websters: Inflation - an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services resulting in a continuing rise in the general price level |
increasing minimum wage -> one-time increase in the cost of production for some goods. it does not affect the money supply, nor does it cause the currency to lose value. therefore, by the SAME DEFINITION you provided, increasing the minimum wage does not cause inflation.
Q.E.D.
geez, CK, can't you admit when you're wrong?
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,05:37
i don't know where that one-time increase came from. the minimum wage is often being changed (increased). raising the minimum wage increases the volume of money without changing the amount of goods, therefore resulting in rise of general price levels. raising the minimum wage increases the cost of production, which increases the cost of goods, which means money isn't worth as much because you can't buy as many goods for the same price. i dont understand how you are confused.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 17 2002,05:41
I hate to burst your bubble, but inflation happens whether you change the minimum wage or not.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,06:10
OK, here we go :
Isn't it interesting that during and after the two most recent minimum wage hikes - during 89-91, and 95-97 - the rate of inflation went down? I'd say that if it affects it at all, raising the minimum wage decreases inflation.
Since we're lobbing the dictionary at each other, which word describes CK's preferred method of reasoning, and which one descibes DSL's? You decide.
empirical adj : derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
doctrinaire adj : stubbornly insistent on theory without regard for practicality or suitability n : an stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions [syn: dogmatist]
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 17 2002,06:30
Ck is right, if you increase the minimum wage you do directly cause price inflation because the companies will increase the price of goods because they will not cut the wages for there executives to make up for the increase in the amount of wages they have to give out. They are moving the cost of the price increase on to the consumer. John Maynard Keynes teaches us that wages are inflexible downward. Do you want an economic lesson guys? It could cause inflation in another way because the companies could fire workers, which would cut supply thus increasing the price anyway due to scarcity, provided demand remained the same. One of the main reasons european unemployment is so high is becasue of High minimum wage standards.b.gif)
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,06:40
your argumen with graphs are illogical DSL. A implies B but if B doesn't nesscessarily mean A. Raising minimum wage will cause inflation. to what degree, I don't know because I don't have any pretty graphs at the moment. however just because inflation goes down in no way implies that it was due to minimum wage hikes. infact i believe that those inflation decreases were due to good economic planning on reagan and bush sr.'s parts.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,06:47
you're really going to sit there and tell me that increasing the minimum wage causes inflation, even though the numbers show the exact opposite, just because it disagrees with your theory? you're a pretty shitty scientist, if you ask me.and by the way, what I wrote was :
| Quote |
| I'd say that if it affects it at all, raising the minimum wage decreases inflation. |
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,07:02
laf just saw you edit your post while i was writing mine. anyways,what numbers? your graphs are meanningless. even over the same date period there is no relationship. between 89-91, while minimum wage is increasing, inflation is decreasing. between 92-96 however, inflation stays the same while minimum wage both decreases and then increases at an even higher rate. between 95-97, while minimum wage is increasing, inflation first increases but then decreases. between 97-00, while minimum wage is increasing again steadily, inflation is decreasing but then increasing strongly. there is no correlation between these two graphs.
and don't call me a shitty scientist you pathetic english major.
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 17 2002,07:03
SUPPLY! SUPPLY! SUPPLY! The economy has been growing the past 10 years increasing the supply of nearly everything, and demand for basic goods has not increased beyond the natural rate of population growth. If you increase the supply of goods and the demand remains the same prices drop, the answer is that the supply has increased far more than minimum wage has increased the price over the given amount of time. Normally when an economy is not in a boom state raises in cost of production like wage increases cause price to increase however the 90's were booming years and the amount of supply increase was greater than the cost increase. Which is why until recently we had very low unemployment and low inflation.
Posted by Non on Apr. 17 2002,07:42
I just read all four pages of this thread... most of it read like my high school econ book, however there were a few insiteful thoughts tossed in, probably jsut to see if I was paying attention. I agree with DSL, the BART is fun, although it is not very scenic under the bay, not as many fishes as I expected to see, the lights flying by in the dark are cool though.
I am not sure what I am going to do with my life... maybe work for the CDC as a virologist or something. My dream is to have a dog and a jeep and hamick on a white sandy beach in mexico, a little house and beautiful wife who loves me. Maybe a garden I can work with my bare hands and sweat under the sun and enjoy life.
As for government, who needs it? I won't get involved in other ppl's business and expect the same. It worked for thousands of years before humans came up with "laws".
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,07:49
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 April 2002,23:02) |
| there is no correlation between these two graphs. |
precisely.
according to your theory, there should be. thanks for making my point!
Posted by veistran on Apr. 17 2002,07:51
*nods sagely in agreement with ic0n0*The problem with social security basically is that it's about as fucked as idealab.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,07:54
| Quote (Non @ 16 April 2002,23:42) |
| I agree with DSL, the BART is fun, although it is not very scenic under the bay, not as many fishes as I expected to see, the lights flying by in the dark are cool though. |
yeah... the transbay tube is creepy :o I try not to look up and think how much water is over my head. But the lights... the lights mesmerize me... they make me think of the psychedelic freakout scene in Willy Wonka.
do you live in the Bay Area? Or did you just visit?
Posted by Non on Apr. 17 2002,08:21
I jsut visited. I was at Berkley for a campus tour and took the BART over to UCSF.
Posted by Bozeman on Apr. 17 2002,13:32
5-->| Quote (BlackFlag @ 16 April 2002,225) |
| Voteing is a joke. The last person i voted for is Dole, and i will never vote again. Its a fucking joke. Why is our fucking political system based on who can look most sincerely into the camera while speaking in perfect sound bytes? |
*sigh*
It's a defeatist attitude like this, along with a sense that your vote doesn't count that cause voter turnout to be less than 50% in most elections.
But I should talk... I live in Lansing, but am registered for Novi (where my parents live) so I can only vote by absentee, which I don't. I should change my registration so I can vote on Lansing initiatives, then I won't be so hypocritical about lecturing people that voting is a wonderful right that you shouldn't take for granted.
"Do you know who would be president if the majority of registered voters got who they voted for? NOBODY!" -Jello Biafra
Edit: Spelling and w00tah! 5th Page! *does cabbage patch*
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 17 2002,15:00
Does this thread even have anything to do this the original topic?
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 17 2002,15:27
| Quote (ic0n0 @ 17 April 2002,09:00) |
| Does this thread even have anything to do this the original topic? |
No... in fact y'all lost the original thought of this thread many posts ago, in my estimation.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,15:31
Ok, I'll keep this brief.Raising the minimum wage doesn't mean that everybody across the board gets a pay raise and thus will not cause immediate changes in the economy. The rate increase will only affect the people at the absolute bottom of the pay scale (those just entering into the workforce for the first time or those performing very menial jobs) which percentage wise is a very small number. The higher minimum wage imposed by the government is negated by the first pay raise the employee gets anyway. Now I would agree that a higher minimum wage would slow the rate at which employees' pay scales are increased, but at some point a worker doing any job will no longer be getting paid the minimum and thus can no longer be used to determine to what extent the minimum wage increase has on the economy. To argue that increasing the entering wage will cause inflation because of increased production costs is unfounded. First of all (thanks to NAFTA) when cheap labor is used to produce goods it is most often used outside of this country. Why pay a $5.50 or $5.75 minimum wage to your employees when you can pay them $0.50 in Mexico for the same work? How many "Made in the USA" stickers do you see on things these days?
I think some key facts we need for this argument is the percentage of people who get paid the minimum wage and what market sectors rely most heavily on domestic cheap labor.
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 17 2002,15:42
| Quote (Wiley @ 17 April 2002,01:31) |
| To argue that increasing the entering wage will cause inflation because of increased production costs is unfounded. |
It is not unfounded! Any economic professor, high school economic textbook, taking an economics class, looking at the value of the dollar over time will tell you it happens. The question is to what extent it effects the overall economy right away, if you don't have any people working for you who are at the low wage you won't be directly effected by it right away. If you have thousands of workers who are receiving the level of pay you will certainly have to increase the price of goods or services your providing because you want your executives to have the same living standard. If raising the pay didn't effect inflation why does the dollar buy so much less than it did in say 1950, it's because pay rates continually increase over time which causes a dollar to be worth less, so you need to keep raising wages to keep the standard of living the same. People are generally unwilling to receive fewer wage for the same amount of work they have been doing for more, this is classic Keynesian economics. However i am not saying this is a bad thing, i am saying this is just the way things work. The fed reserve must increase the amount of money in curculation when people demand higher rates of pay becasue there is only a certain amount of money in circulation if they didn't you would have a money shortage and deflation, no one wants deflation becasue it shrinks G.D.P.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,17:55
| Quote (ic0n0 @ 17 April 2002,07:42) |
| If raising the pay didn't effect inflation why does the dollar buy so much less than it did in say 1950, it's because pay rates continually increase over time which causes a dollar to be worth less, so you need to keep raising wages to keep the standard of living the same. People are generally unwilling to receive fewer wage for the same amount of work they have been doing for more, this is classic Keynesian economics. |
I'm not arguing that people want to get paid more and more and this is a contributing factor of inflation, in fact I am in complete agreement there. My argument is that raising the minimum wage, the starting wage, the wage you pay a 16 year old at a video store isn't going to cause inflation. The working public who expect annual raises and higher salaries are the ones to blame for inflation. To quote you "People are generally unwilling to receive fewer wage for the same amount of work they have been doing". These people who have doing the work and are getting the higher wages as time goes on, are these the people who fall into minimum wage? No, they can't be ...by definition the minimum wage is the lowest amount of money you can legally pay somebody. Once they get a raise they are no longer part of our focus study. Let’s keep our focus on one thing at a time here will a minimum wage increase cause inflation?
Let's take a specific example. If I have 10 workers that I pay minimum wage to, and that wage is increased by .25 cents then I'm forced to pay all 10 of my employees a total of $200 more per paycheck. If I have one executive who is up for review and I give him a mere 5% raise on top of his $100,000 salary then I'm paying him $192 more per paycheck. Roughly the same as I am forced to pay out to 10 of my minimum wage earners ...and that's just one raise. As we discussed earlier, everybody wants more and more as time goes on ...so we have to figure that a good percentage of the company's work force is getting raises every year. Those salary increases alone will far outweigh any minimum wage rate changes mandated by the government. A company can easily stay at it’s same financial position by slowing the rate at which they raise the pay scale for all their non-minimum wage earners. Effectively giving more to the lower paid and slowing the rate at which the higher paid will earn more. As I stated previously, I believe that the best thing we can to help the poor is increase the minimum wage. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 17 2002,18:13
| Quote (CycleLady @ 17 April 2002,15:27) |
| No... in fact y'all lost the original thought of this thread many posts ago, in my estimation. |
hell did we beat the DetNet average of 1 post?
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,18:25
Since a 'wage' is basically the price of labor, an employer is only going to pay labor what it's worth.Hypothetical:
Jamie works for Sony making TV electronics. Jamie's job doesn't require more than a high school education and some on the job training. Jamie is considered to be an 'unskilled laborer' and is paid 10$/hour by Sony to make these parts. That is, Sony has determined that the value of Jamie's labor is 10$/hour. If Jamie wants to earn more a Sony, Jamie must increase the value of the labor. Jamie goes to college and becomes an engineer. Instead of putting together parts, Jamie now designs new television technology for Sony. Jamie spends 6 months working up a design that will give Sony a new patent. Due to Jamie's work, Sony will have a seven year exclusive to manufacture and sell this new technology. Jamie is now paid $60K/year, because Sony has evaluated Jamie's skills and found that they are worth this price. Jamie however believes the skills are worth more than that, so Jamie goes hunting for a new job. Jamie sends out résumés and goes to interviews for various companies until Panasonic offers Jamie $70K/year to design new technology for Panasonic. Jamie has sold skills on the capitalist marketplace and increased Jamie's salary by improving the worth of Jamie's work.
Now take Sam for example. Sam worked right beside Jamie in the beginning. Instead of going to college or obtaining any kind of training, Sam remained an unskilled laborer. Enter the federal government, who now tells Sony that instead of paying Sam $10/hour, Sony must pay Sam $15/hour. Sony does not believe that Sam's skills are worth $15/hour, but the government has given Sony only two choices: pay Sam $15/hour, or don't have Sam working for Sony. Sony, in an effort to cut costs so that they can increase profit, lays Sam off and moves Sam's job to a country that doesn't have artificial wage regulation. They know pay Jurwarhlehala $.60/day to do Sam's old job. Sam is now unemployed, collecting an unemployment check from the government, whereas Sam used to have a job that paid him $10/hour. Is Sam better off?
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 17 2002,19:00
The issue is really the so-called living wage, what you need to be paid to afford the basics. The problem is that many of the minimum wage people are teens who are still dependants of their parents and so the living wage really doesn't apply to them. So will increasing the legal minimum wage for non-dependant people cause inflation? Yes and no, for the local economy of an area with a living wage law it will but as the total U.S. economy no. Another prob is that forcing an employer to pay more wages my drive them out of an area that really needs the investment. So we institute a national living wage, there is also a prob because not all areas have the same prices for living. Many companies may just relocate to the cheaper areas or pack up all together and setup shop in Mexico or Indonesia. I may be a leftist but I think instituting a national living wage is more detrimental to our economy. I agree people should be able to afford the basics but I just don’t think we can develop a system that can allow this to work 100% of the time.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,19:25
| Quote (kuru @ 17 April 2002,10:25) |
| Sam remained an unskilled laborer. Enter the federal government, who now tells Sony that instead of paying Sam $10/hour, Sony must pay Sam $15/hour. Sony does not believe that Sam's skills are worth $15/hour, but the government has given Sony only two choices: pay Sam $15/hour, or don't have Sam working for Sony. Sony, in an effort to cut costs so that they can increase profit, lays Sam off and moves Sam's job to a country that doesn't have artificial wage regulation. They know pay Jurwarhlehala $.60/day to do Sam's old job. Sam is now unemployed, collecting an unemployment check from the government, whereas Sam used to have a job that paid him $10/hour. Is Sam better off? |
C'mon now, $10/hr is hardly minimum wage and I wouldn't suggest a $5/hr increase or even argue that such a raise would be viable. Sam however would be better off if Sony was forced to start him at $7as opposed to $5.50 which would still not be worth moving opperations to Jurwarhlehala's neck of the woods for. And with a bit more money in his pocket maybe Sam can go to school and make something of himself like Jaime did.
And since when do people get paid what they are worth? I've never seen a company that bases pay on their profit margins. Companies pay people as little as they possibly can. Employees shop what other companies are willing to pay people doing their same job and try and force their company to give them a raise. If their company doesn't bring them up to what they feel they are "worth" they quit. I've seen many of instances where two people doing the same job got paid grossly different salaries, and this is a key reason that I aways say "you never will get it if you don't ask for it". If there was no minimum wage then I'm sure people would be working for $1.50 an hour right now, the extra profit would just go where it always goes ...into the companies bottom line.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,19:45
Companies pay workers what the worker is worth to that company. Forcing them to pay more per worker means they'll hire less workers. Instead of 3 workers at $5/hour, they'll employ two at $7.50 and make those two do the work of 3. Or they'll ship the whole operation to Mexico and pay 15 cents an hour to a 12 year old kid. As a worker, if you want more money for your labor, it's up to YOU to increase the value of your labor so that you can shop that labor around the marketplace and get the price you want. Don't like it that Sheetz will only pay you $5.75/hour? Wal*Mart's paying $7.
The point is, companies DO pay workers as little as they absolutely can - to minimize the cost of labor. If they offer a wage so low that they can't get labor (because everybody goes to work somewhere else that pays more), they'll raise the price they're willing to pay for labor, but only high enough that the labor they get is worth the money they pay.
Or if you want to think of it another way, 'worth' is subjective. What will I pay for a bottle of water? The absolute minimum I can. I'd prefer it was free. It's not. Is it worth it to me to pay 50 cents a bottle to get clean water? How about $1 a bottle? $2? $5? At what point does the price demanded for a bottle of water become 'not worth it' to me? Same thing happens with labor. Labor is a saleable product. If I'm buying, I want to pay as little as I have to in order to get the utility I want. If I'm selling, I want paid as much as I can for as little effort as possible. Supply and demand.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 17 2002,19:53
| Quote |
| No cable TV, no brand name clothes, no car when I turned 16. |
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!!!! THAT is your deffinition of 'dirt poor' kuru?!?!?!? Shit, if that's dirt poor, my financial situation probably qualifies for federal disaster aid.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,20:09
No, BF, because all the details aren't there. Most people my age grew up with all of those things, but I grew up without those, and without a boatload of other things that 'normal' middle-class kids had.
I don't post a whole fuckload of information about my life on these boards, but if you really must know a great portion of my childhood was spent a) wondering if my dad would still have a job next week or if the place he worked was going to close and b) hoping that my parents had enough money to feed us.
And really, it's hard for a 17 year old who has had his/her own computer for the last 3 years with internet access to realize what it's like to live in a house that's falling apart hoping some generous person will pass along some hand-me-down clothes because Dad's work is on lock-out and that means Mom can't even afford to buy groceries. Someone who has always had cable tv, a car, and designer clothes cannot relate to a statement of "I had no comforts". They can relate to "I had no cable."
Posted by CycleLady on Apr. 17 2002,20:14
| Quote (kuru @ 17 April 2002,14:09) |
| No, BF, because all the details aren't there. Most people my age grew up with all of those things, but I grew up without those, and without a boatload of other things that 'normal' middle-class kids had. I don't post a whole fuckload of information about my life on these boards, but if you really must know a great portion of my childhood was spent a) wondering if my dad would still have a job next week or if the place he worked was going to close and b) hoping that my parents had enough money to feed us. And really, it's hard for a 17 year old who has had his/her own computer for the last 3 years with internet access to realize what it's like to live in a house that's falling apart hoping some generous person will pass along some hand-me-down clothes because Dad's work is on lock-out and that means Mom can't even afford to buy groceries. Someone who has always had cable tv, a car, and designer clothes cannot relate to a statement of "I had no comforts". They can relate to "I had no cable." |
I'd say that's growing up "dirt poor" Kuru
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 17 2002,20:31
I'm with Kuru on this one. I grew up in much the same situation. My entire wardrobe until I was about 13 was whatever didn't fit my older brother anymore. My father worked some truly horrible factory jobs in some truly horrible conditions just to keep us fed and we still almost lost our house 3 or 4 times. The aforementioned house had no siding, just tar paper, and no heat upstairs (which is where my bedroom was. Xmas was one or two toys, birthday was whatever we wanted for dinner (KFC was a MAJOR treat).But to look at me now, you wouldn't think of it. Most ppl peg me as having an upper middle class upbringing, etc. The point? Kids are spoiled, sheltered, and can't relate. I think kuru's example, while intentionally simplified, is just about the only way to provide a frame of reference to these kids.
My disagreement w/Wiley's suggestion that the minimum wage increase only affects the ppl at the bottom (instead of a unilateral wage increase) is that you're really going to piss off the people right above the bottom.
Hypothetical: You make $8/hr. and have worked there for 2 years. Minimum wage is, what, $5.50 or so now? Minimum wage gets raised $2.00/hr. So now, a new hire w/no experience or seniority, or whatever is making $7.50/hr. and you're still only making $8.00. Are you very happy? Are you going to stick around? Applied to the white collar world, what happens when management trainees get hired in at more than current mid-level managers? All hell breaks loose, but it's a symptom of the economy.
I don't claim to be an expert on economics (hated the classes actually), but I know that simply bumping the min. wage solves nothing. NAFTA screwed the US (per kuru's comment) and in a lot of cases, raising the min. wage will just mean losing more production jobs. One of the prevailing theories is that the US is moving from an industrial to a service economy. Perhaps it is, but this transition is displacing a substantial number of laborers who have no service skills. We like to think that we're a super progressive, educated country, but the fact is, we still have the illiterate, uneducated masses who (God bless them) aren't qualified for or capable of anything other than labor positons. The more you drive out industry and manufacturing, the more you increase the population of undereducated, unemployed, disaffected people. A dangerous recipe if you pay attention to the history of Russia.
So what's the magic answer? The hell if I know, I'm not a solutions guy...
Damn...I thought I said I was going to stay out of this...
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,20:32
Well, lucky for me the library was free. I read everything I could possibly get my hands on, turned myself into college material (despite what my guidance counselors told me as a kid) and went to college on grants, scholarships and loans.I'm in debt by the tens of thousands, but I'm not poor anymore.
Posted by veistran on Apr. 17 2002,20:42
| Quote (Necromancer @ 17 April 2002,12:13) | ||
hell did we beat the DetNet average of 1 post? |
1? most of the posts aren't even relevant to the title!
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,20:47
| Quote (kuru @ 17 April 2002,11:45) |
| Companies pay workers what the worker is worth to that company. Forcing them to pay more per worker means they'll hire less workers. Instead of 3 workers at $5/hour, they'll employ two at $7.50 and make those two do the work of 3. Or they'll ship the whole operation to Mexico and pay 15 cents an hour to a 12 year old kid. |
If they can get the same work out of two that they can out of three then that's an improvment in effeciency ...more power to them. As far as shipping it off to Mexico, why would a company suddenly make that change as a result of a $2.50 increase is wages? If they could get the work that they are paying $5/hr done for $0.15/hr they would have done that then. There has to be some benifit to being in the US.
| Quote |
| As a worker, if you want more money for your labor, it's up to YOU to increase the value of your labor so that you can shop that labor around the marketplace and get the price you want. Don't like it that Sheetz will only pay you $5.75/hour? Wal*Mart's paying $7. |
It's also up to YOU to get your company to pay you more. Very rarely does my boss dop in and say "hey, now that you read that book do you want any more money?"
| Quote |
| Labor is a saleable product. If I'm buying, I want to pay as little as I have to in order to get the utility I want. |
This is my point! All I've been saying is that the corporate world is going to try and screw the little guy and the only resonsibility the government should have is to make sure they are at least fair with the starting wages. By fair I mean having a starting salary that makes it possible to survive. Minimum wage earners have no marketable skills (obviously) and thus need a slight amount of protection to help them get a start in life. We all know that if the minimum wage was $3/hr then there would be companies paying $3/hr for labor ...they are obviously not going to change without government involvment.
| Quote |
| My disagreement w/Wiley's suggestion that the minimum wage increase only affects the ppl at the bottom (instead of a unilateral wage increase) is that you're really going to piss off the people right above the bottom. |
Boo Hoo for them then, hopefully it will light a fire under their ass and get them to work harder. Maybe put more distance between them and the bottom feeders. Who ever said life was fair?
Posted by Nikita on Apr. 17 2002,20:48
| Quote (kuru @ 17 April 2002,15:32) |
| Well, lucky for me the library was free. I read everything I could possibly get my hands on, turned myself into college material (despite what my guidance counselors told me as a kid) and went to college on grants, scholarships and loans. |
BAM! Kuru said it. So did Beldurin, Wiley, and all others who got ahead in life with little to start out on.
It's what you make of yourself. Hell, back when I was 7, I remember my dad gave me my old hair pins for christmas one year. Goodwill has some good stuff at times. Dug up an interview suit for 5 bucks.
My HS counselors said that I'd never get into a decent engineering school. They tried to push me towards some christian college that costs more than out-of-state tuition for a reputable Big 10. They even warped my recommendations - good ones for christian schools, bad ones for the likes of U Chicago "evil secular" types.
They tried to prevent me from taking AP exams b/c they "didn't teach those classes and didn't want to embarrass the school" (hello, first AP scholar from that rinkydink shithole)
Who cares what they say or where life crapped you out of it's unfair ass. Take opportunity as you find it, learn from it, and try to step up to the next rung.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,20:54
You never get more out than you put in.And there are plenty of examples of people who started out with nothing that drove themselves to be somebody. No, I'm not talkin about being billionaires. I'm talking about working UPWARD.
You don't start at the bottom, skip the middle, and end up at the top. I'm still moving up. I will be MY WHOLE LIFE.
Because I will fight for it. I will claw, scratch, bite, chew, climb, whatever up that damn rope ladder. I will not stop. I will never be satisfied with 'just enough.'
Some people are. They never move upward.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,21:25
You people are like a whole Afterschool Special or something.I think you all would gang up on me and kick my ass if I told you my struggling story.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 17 2002,22:09
No, but we would gather around a can of spam, pass the spork, and laugh like hell about it.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 17 2002,23:03
Well get your spork out and dig into that Spam? as I present to you ...The Wiley Story (ultra short version).I never struggled much in life, in fact I was downright spoiled. I did however spent a lot of my younger years trying not to succeed. I wasn't supposed to graduate high school (having ditched english class for an entire year) and only graduated because I got my parents to sue the school (yes ...the American way ...it's always somebody elses fault). I didn't take my parents up on their offer to send me to a college of my choice and instead chose to go to a JC to hang out with some looser friends who were just interested in partying all the time. Class seemed to interfere with sleep so pretty soon I dropped out of school all together. I'm not too proud of the age 16-19 years and I don't really know what it was that woke me up and made me realize that I was about to piss my life away. But, I'm thankful every day that I eventually came to the realization that I had to take a serious look at my life and what it was becoming. From 21 till now I've busted my ass to climb the corporate ladder and it has paid off well. When I was 20 I worked in a video store for minimum wage ...eight years later I'm an executive with a six figure salary. God fucking bless America.
So I'm not saying I came from the most meger beginings, but I did do the climb from minimum wage & living off my gf to being somewhat sucessful on my own. It's not like I got handouts or anything. It just took taking a serious look at my life and how I myself was going to change it.
Posted by editor on Apr. 17 2002,23:03
*sporks*?I LOVE sporks...
know where I can get some?
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,23:09
why are we still arguing about minimum wage causing inflation when, as CK so kindly pointed out, the data shows no noticable correlation between the minimum wage and inflation?I'm with Wiley on this one. Unless you make a *huge* increase in the minimum wage, raising it does little other than put more money in the poorest people's pockets. Money that can be spent on buying books, going to community college, and generally working to improve yourself. Money that puts a little more food in your stomach so you can think a little more clearly. Money that makes working an attractive alternative to collecting Welfare.
Kuru, you obviously worked *very* hard to get to where you're at, but you're also an exceptional woman. Somehow I think that even if you'd been born into the middle or upper classes you'd *still* bust ass. It's in your nature. You should be rewarded for all your hard work, and doubtless you will be - but that doesn't mean we should punish those who can't or don't work as hard as you do. They shouldn't get paid as well, to be sure, but they shouldn't have to go through life broke either!
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 17 2002,23:20
i was looking for some more arguments in my defense and this is what i found. first i was looking for statistics to prove kuru's unemployment hypothesis. however, the unemployment rate typically only raises by about 1%. heres the kicker though, it raises unemployment of teens by 3%. raising the minimum wage doesn't put more money in the pockets of poor people, it puts more money in the pockets of teens. the reason being that a large percentage of workers of minimum wage are teens.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 17 2002,23:30
Wow, Wiley, your childhood sounds a lot like mine. I'm an only child, my dad has pulled in six figures as long as I can remember, my mom stayed at home to raise me.I graduated high school, but not without a *lot* of threats from my parents. My parents wanted me to go directly to a four-year, but I wanted to hang out with my loser buddies... the only reason I went to JC was because I was given the option of a. go to college and continue to live at home and work part-time, or b. move out and get a full-time job.
Obviously A was the much easier way than B, so I took it. Eventually I had everything I needed to transfer, so to continue the free ride I transferred to a four-year. Since my parents were always going on about the necessity of a college degree to get a well-paying job, I chose CS as a major because I figured any of the majors *I* wanted to take would be worthless.
The two years I spent pursuing CS were the most miserable years of my life... I got plenty of W's and D's because I never went to class. I fucking hated it. Eventually the parents decided the free ride was over and cut me off... and I drifted for a semester, doing absolutely nothing. I had no job, no motivation, and a family that had decided I was a worthless bum... which I was.
The next semester my parents gave me one last chance to clean my act up. Pass the next semester with a 3.0 or better, they said, or don't expect to see any more money from us ever again.
That semester I took all my remaining GE requirements and not a single CS course. That's when I realized how much I loved English courses (hadn't taken one in years)... and I thought "hmm, if I'm going to graduate at all, I'm going to have to switch majors to something I like." So I told my family look, this is it, I'm switching to English, you can pay or you can kick me out, I don't care, I'm getting my degree in this.
They paid, I graduated, and I'm very proud of my B.A. Now the problem is extracting myself from the IT industry... fortunately my parents are now very supportive of my decisions. Not financially, of course, but emotionally they are finally there.
I think they realized that raising a rich kid is a lot different than raising a poor one.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 18 2002,08:04
| Quote |
| I don't post a whole fuckload of information about my life on these boards, but if you really must know a great portion of my childhood was spent a) wondering if my dad would still have a job next week or if the place he worked was going to close and b) hoping that my parents had enough money to feed us. |
Have you ever went looking for dinner in a Dunkin' Donuts dumpster? Ever lived in a Salvation Army? Were you aware that cockroaches, like humans, get irritable during hot&humid weather, and are more likely to bite (yes bite) people? Ever had a big orange 'condemned building' sticker slapped on your front door?
You don't know the first thing about dirt poor.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 18 2002,09:58
Let mask the obvious : did you experience all those things, BlackFlag? Or were you just using that as an example?
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 18 2002,14:28
I know where this guy is from.(damm...im defending bf...hell is going to need a heater service man)
chances are VERY good that he has experienced most of these things he talks about.
I know the area. It sucks. its a hell hole.
It is something you can overcome and suceed inspite of.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 18 2002,14:44
Does it matter? He's only doing this to try to prove I didn't have it rough when I was growing up. IOW, he's bent on being an asshole to me. Go figure.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 18 2002,14:51
| Quote (Wiley @ 17 April 2002,18:03) |
| I'm not too proud of the age 16-19 years and I don't really know what it was that woke me up and made me realize that I was about to piss my life away. But, I'm thankful every day that I eventually came to the realization that I had to take a serious look at my life and what it was becoming. From 21 till now I've busted my ass to climb the corporate ladder and it has paid off well. When I was 20 I worked in a video store for minimum wage ...eight years later I'm an executive with a six figure salary. God fucking bless America. |
Glad to know you were able to pull your head out of your ass no matter how it was done.
Good Job.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 18 2002,15:12
Yes i have experienced all of those things, and that's just the tip of the iceburg. It sucked.Despite that my background is shittier than kuru's (as if anyone cares), most of the work i have to do to improve my life is mental..... I mean shit; i have a genius level IQ-- there is no fucking way my life could be this fucked up if i didn't on some level want it to be.
Im starting to realize that my shitty childhood, as much as i would like all of that suffering to have a meaning, just doesn't. It means nothing, and its over, in the past.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 18 2002,15:12
Nice to see this has turned into a glorified pissing contest...
Posted by kuru on Apr. 18 2002,15:17
Heh, actually it *was* just sharing stories until BF decided he had to go on 'Your life wasn't hard because it wasn't exactly like mine' whining spree.
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 18 2002,16:13
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 18 April 2002,01:12) |
| Nice to see this has turned into a glorified pissing contest... |
It does seem that way. I am the 1st to admit my life has been easy, so since we are all talking about hardship i have had to over come a great deal of mental illness. Nothing like what BF or Kuru have had to deal with none less we all have our own issues.
Posted by Necromancer on Apr. 18 2002,16:28
It sall well and good when you have somethign to work towards but when you havent got a fucking clue what you want to do with your life its the most depressing thing ever. That and constantly going crazy trying to figure out lifes little quirks.If i had the slightest clue what was a good idea for doing somehting in my life i might actually try to work towards it.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 18 2002,18:19
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 18 April 2002,07:12) |
| I mean shit; i have a genius level IQ |
That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.
Much like I am against the education system in general, I am against tests that were developed to figure out just how smart you are. It doesn't mean a damn thing how fast you can solve problems, how many things you can remember, your ability to perform abstract reasoning or what you see in ink blots. The only thing that matters is what you do with it. IQ tests caused me nothing but a bunch of headaches. Here's the story (there is a point at the end);
When I was in 5th grade I was a bad student, I mean the worst. I failed everything ...I was always off daydreaming when the teacher was talking. Well one day she got pissed and sent me to sit with the 4th graders all day since she felt I obviously couldn't handle her class. This pissed me off to no end and to get back at her I devised a plan that would unfold throughout the semester. When I rejoined my class we had an oral class spelling bee to determine who would go to the school wide spelling bee. I won our class spelling contest (which surprised the hell out of her because I failed all the tests before) and was picked to go in front of the school for the school spelling test. When I was up in front of the school and they gave me my word to spell, I took the mic I started crying ...then said into the mic and in front of the entire school "I don't know why she picked me ...she knows I have a hard time with spelling ...she hates me" and then went crying off the stage. The great part was when they called my parents to get me after I screamed at everybody and they confronted the teacher "how could you do that to him ...he fails every spelling test you give him!". Of course there is no record of the oral contest that we had to get into the school-wide event so everybody assumed that she just picked me to represent our class to be a bitch. The next contest was the Pen&Quill penmanship contest, I won the class and school event and then refused to write anything when I went to the district even ...I lost, but it was fun watching everybody blame the teacher again for letting it get that far out of hand. Then there was the school open-house (where the parents tour the school and meet the teachers) that we were supposed to do a project for. The project was drawing a picture of an animal and writing about what they ate, where they lived and other such nonsense. I spent the time in class that was meant to do the project gluing things together and drawing pictures of anything but animals. The teacher didn't want to be blamed for me not having a project ready when the parents toured the school and so she launched a preemptive strike ...she called my parents in for a conference to discuss my poor performance and to let them know that she didn't think I would have anything ready by the open-house. The day we were supposed to setup our projects on our desks I unveiled the project I had been secretly working on, a complete research paper on the pangolin (an armored anteater native to southeast Asia). BAM! Best project in the class …my only regret is not seeing the look on my parents face when they toured the class and got to see just how “I wasted all my time in class and would never have a project ready in time”. But I did get a new teacher J
6th grade (we’re getting close to the point here, bear with me) under the schools advisement my parents took me to be tested. The school thought I was a bit on the slow side because of my poor performance. My parents were of course totally offended by the idea. Long story short (too late) I got a 175 on the IQ test …so I guess I’m not dumb.
The Downside
This now gave me carte blanche to be the worlds biggest screw off in school. My parents would attribute everything to me just being bored and the class moving too slow for me. I would play on it and say “yeah …I always know so much more then the teacher”. Being smart became an excuse for not having to work (sound familiar BlackFlag?). So who give a shit if I have a 157 IQ (more accurate testing was verified by Mensa) if I just piss any raw talent away? Is anybody going to pay me to just sit and daydream all day? It took me years to wake up from that mess.
Sorry for rambling there.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 18 2002,18:41
I didn't post my 'hard life' so people here would feel bad for me. It's just a matter of fact that I didn't have shit easy as a kid.You deal. You grow. You move on....
or you don't.
It's a choice.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 18 2002,18:48
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 18 April 2002,10:12) |
| Im starting to realize that my shitty childhood, as much as i would like all of that suffering to have a meaning, just doesn't. It means nothing, and its over, in the past. |
he has hit the learning curve and has his foot to the floor...
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 18 2002,22:29
/me marvels that we've hit six pages and we're still going.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 19 2002,00:35
| Quote | ||
That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. |
Yeah, found that out the hard way. Didn't really start figuring that out till highschool. Not only did the free ride end, but i alienated alot of potential friends with an "im smarter than 99.8% of you" attitude. (the designated bullies just loved me.) Unfortunately, at that point in my life, i had the emotional IQ of sponge mold...... and i still haven't grown-the-fuck-up entirely yet. Inside me is a little kindergardener who's still crying over getting kicked in the nuts for no apparent reason while the entire caffateria population laughes at his pain. How the fuck do i put that demon to rest? 'Not thinking about it' for 19 years didn't help.
Im still fucking pissed at the world becasue its not fair and doesn't make sense. (Maybe its not supposed to.) I'm still pissed at myself for being weak enough for others to use me like a door-mat. Contrary to the bullshit i post here, i blame myself for 110% of my problems, when im probably only responsible for 70% of the fucked up shit in my life. I still believe deep down in the core of my being that im worth less then, um, anyone else. Maybe i should have kept taking prozac.
The story of my life isn't all negative though. I've been having plenty of moments in the past few months where i realize shit about myself.... moments of clarity where i see my life for what it is and wonder why the fuck i've done things the way i did. That's progress i guess.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Apr. 19 2002,00:46
Blackflag :< Still the best book on social skills ever written. >
Neat thing about it is you actually understand people more when you're done reading it. And because of that, you like 'em a little more.
I own a copy. I've read it through about 4 times.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Apr. 19 2002,16:15
You know how you get those interesting substitutes in high school every once in a while? Well, one of my favorites (who actually owned his own company and only substituted for...who knows why) always carried that book around with him which, consequently, led to quite a few interesting discusions.