Minimum Wage
- Thread starter Danoff
- 242 comments
- 9,739 views
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
But here's the fundamental flaw in your logic: the "almighty" dollar is not the "sole valuative principal" of capitalism. Free, non-compulsory trade of those dollars is the fundamental valuative principle of capitalism. That leaves every individual free to make the most beneficial deal for themselves that they can - workers and owners alike.
And "greed" is natural to life. Period. Is kudzu "greedy" because it climbs a tree to get to the light? Is the lioness "greedy" for eating the gazelle?
Human beings are unique because they have the capacity to make wealth, rather than just harvest it when they can find it. No other country until America came along had ever realized that, and 200 years hasn't been enough time for other countries to understand it fully enough (or America itself, for that matter).
That's not true at all, IMHO.
- 10,832
Well I re-read it, thought about it, and read it again. Just like you said. And I stand by my previous comment. When a company peddles a product they are not thinking about the great ideals of free trade and it's vague benefit to society. They are thinking about the bottom line, profit. Just look at FOX.
Meh... maybe. The use of the suffix "ism" is meant to identify a specific doctrine. Usually they are logical, even if not in practice.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
What's wrong with thinking about the bottom line? What's wrong with pursuing profit? Pursuing profit creates jobs. Pursuing profit creates goods that can be purchased. Pursuing profit leads to scientific discovery (research), self expression (art,books,music), improvements to the quality of life (eg: dishwasher, vacuum, TV, washing machine, cars, internet, computers...), and it leads to money - which is the power to purchase rewards for your hard work and the power to create more profit which means more scientific discovery, self expression, improvements to the quality of life, power to purchase rewards, and more money.
You get the picture.
Profit is good because production is good. Profit only comes from consumers that choose to give up their money because they feel that they are making out ahead by trading the rewards from their own quest for profit for whatever product someone else is peddling for a profit so that he/she can also be a consumer and purchase the goods someone else is peddling.
Profit and greed are what makes America the single surviving superpower on the planet. Which is better for the world? a company/person compassionately giving some of its profit away to someone who hasnt earned it - or a company/person increasing its/his/her revenue so that it can create 500 new jobs?
Let me tie this back in to the topic.
The pursuit of profit is exactly what drives companies to offer jobs that are priced well above the minimum wage. I say that if the job is worth less than minimum wage, you should not have to pay someone more than the jobs worth to do it. To do otherwise would be to drain on the rest of the (more productive) country.
If we got rid of the minimum wage, though, I think you would find that there arent many jobs that would fall below the minimum wage level, because people would not be willing to work for less than a livable wage (cause what would be the point?). Companies would still have to compete for a work force. The result would be akin to the current situation in which many people are not willing to work for anything even close to minimum wage.
And if a company wants to make much of a profit, it needs employees.
You get the picture.
Profit is good because production is good. Profit only comes from consumers that choose to give up their money because they feel that they are making out ahead by trading the rewards from their own quest for profit for whatever product someone else is peddling for a profit so that he/she can also be a consumer and purchase the goods someone else is peddling.
Profit and greed are what makes America the single surviving superpower on the planet. Which is better for the world? a company/person compassionately giving some of its profit away to someone who hasnt earned it - or a company/person increasing its/his/her revenue so that it can create 500 new jobs?
Let me tie this back in to the topic.
The pursuit of profit is exactly what drives companies to offer jobs that are priced well above the minimum wage. I say that if the job is worth less than minimum wage, you should not have to pay someone more than the jobs worth to do it. To do otherwise would be to drain on the rest of the (more productive) country.
If we got rid of the minimum wage, though, I think you would find that there arent many jobs that would fall below the minimum wage level, because people would not be willing to work for less than a livable wage (cause what would be the point?). Companies would still have to compete for a work force. The result would be akin to the current situation in which many people are not willing to work for anything even close to minimum wage.
And if a company wants to make much of a profit, it needs employees.
- 10,832
No. It doesn't. Pursuing profit leads to profit.
And I didn't say there is anything wrong with pursuing profit. But there is something wrong with sacrificing too much to it. You seem to think that as long as everyone is chasing money, everything will inevitably be great for everybody. That is capitalist ideological rhetoric. Like I said to Duke, it sounds like the preface to a minifesto.
- 10,832
Saying you sound brainwashed is not calling you names. Buddy.
Simply put, the pursuit of profit overcame everything else. The ones making the profit intentionally concealed and misrepresented unwise and illegal dealings, coerced others into lying and hiding the truth from shareholders and potential wistle-blowers. The end result was failure. The end of profits. A lot of people got screwed bad, people who believed the lies that the pursuit of profit had become, people who believed the mindless rhetoric you have been spouting, the unfettered greed.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
I'm trying to get all of this straight here.
First I'm brainwashed, then I'm (excuse me, my philosophy) is responsible for Enron?
I never said that there didn't have to be laws. Pursuing profit doesn't mean you can break laws. It doesn't mean that you can infringe on another human being's rights.
You haven't shown me any counter arguments. You've told me that the reason these people broke the law is because they pursued profit. That doesnt make profit bad, that makes their means of obtaining it illegal. I dont see that as a breakdown in the system. Can you show me a little more clearly how Enron is an example of how my economic philosophy is flawed?
Now you were saying about other things being chased besides profit. Ok I believe that. I never said otherwise. Tell me what things are being chased that infringe on capitalism. How does that interfere with what I am saying?
First I'm brainwashed, then I'm (excuse me, my philosophy) is responsible for Enron?
I never said that there didn't have to be laws. Pursuing profit doesn't mean you can break laws. It doesn't mean that you can infringe on another human being's rights.
You haven't shown me any counter arguments. You've told me that the reason these people broke the law is because they pursued profit. That doesnt make profit bad, that makes their means of obtaining it illegal. I dont see that as a breakdown in the system. Can you show me a little more clearly how Enron is an example of how my economic philosophy is flawed?
Now you were saying about other things being chased besides profit. Ok I believe that. I never said otherwise. Tell me what things are being chased that infringe on capitalism. How does that interfere with what I am saying?
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Eric, I think that right there is the biggest point to the capatalism debate? While pursueing your own goals and what not is perfectly fine (and good!), you can't do so while breaking laws, hurting other people, infringing on their rights, etc. etc. In other words, capatalism promotes lawful pursuits of whatever it is you're pursueing.
(hanker, was that necessary?
)
- 10,832
Every economic "philosophy" is flawed... every thing is in fact, flawed.
If you read my posts you will see that I am opposed to socialism, and believe capitalism to be the best system available. Yeah. Capitalism is great. But it can be better, especially for the bottom rungs. Like any system, a little tweaking here and there can have dramatic end results with no perceivable change to the system.
Regarding Enron... the system did too break. I didn't say Enron proves anything in particular about capitalism. But I will say it highlights some of capitalism's flaws. Can't it have flaws? Why would that be so upsetting?
The so-called "tech bubble" would be a better example of the system breaking. Garbage in... garbage out. So big deal? We fix it.
Danoff... My problem with your posts is that you sound like some kind of fanatic. Your premise seems to be that everything has been figured out. Captialism is a perfect system and civilization has attained it's final state in it. That perspective is always wrong no matter what it is regarding. Capitalism is a new econimic system (it is not a "philosophy"). It has changed and improved countless times in the past hundred years, and will continue to do so for a long time. We learn what is wrong with it through it's problems and errors. Because it is so overarching, it's flaws effect millions of people at once, span generations, and in dire ways.
Economic opportunity has to be dictated by a free market, and your arguments, minus the fanaticism, apply pretty much all by themselves. Quality of life and standard of living can be directly influenced by a context where greed is valued just a little bit less... just a little bit. America's advanced and advantaged state, is fully capable of pulling this off. The effect of it would be wide reaching and happen over a long period of time; it would not hurt capitalism or the swollen bank accounts of executives. To do otherwise is merely putting undue faith in a sythetic concept that has not shown itself capable of what we are asking of it.
But of course nobody can coerce this, nor should they be allowed to. And the government telling business what to do is a bad idea. But that doesn't mean change can't and shouldn't happen.
I hope this makes my prespective evident because I'm bored with this topic now and am sick of pointing out that I'm against minimum wages and government intervention into business, but just think they could invest more into their number one resource: people.
When people are so religious about things arguments become tedious rather fast.
If you read my posts you will see that I am opposed to socialism, and believe capitalism to be the best system available. Yeah. Capitalism is great. But it can be better, especially for the bottom rungs. Like any system, a little tweaking here and there can have dramatic end results with no perceivable change to the system.
Regarding Enron... the system did too break. I didn't say Enron proves anything in particular about capitalism. But I will say it highlights some of capitalism's flaws. Can't it have flaws? Why would that be so upsetting?
The so-called "tech bubble" would be a better example of the system breaking. Garbage in... garbage out. So big deal? We fix it.
Danoff... My problem with your posts is that you sound like some kind of fanatic. Your premise seems to be that everything has been figured out. Captialism is a perfect system and civilization has attained it's final state in it. That perspective is always wrong no matter what it is regarding. Capitalism is a new econimic system (it is not a "philosophy"). It has changed and improved countless times in the past hundred years, and will continue to do so for a long time. We learn what is wrong with it through it's problems and errors. Because it is so overarching, it's flaws effect millions of people at once, span generations, and in dire ways.
Economic opportunity has to be dictated by a free market, and your arguments, minus the fanaticism, apply pretty much all by themselves. Quality of life and standard of living can be directly influenced by a context where greed is valued just a little bit less... just a little bit. America's advanced and advantaged state, is fully capable of pulling this off. The effect of it would be wide reaching and happen over a long period of time; it would not hurt capitalism or the swollen bank accounts of executives. To do otherwise is merely putting undue faith in a sythetic concept that has not shown itself capable of what we are asking of it.
But of course nobody can coerce this, nor should they be allowed to. And the government telling business what to do is a bad idea. But that doesn't mean change can't and shouldn't happen.
I hope this makes my prespective evident because I'm bored with this topic now and am sick of pointing out that I'm against minimum wages and government intervention into business, but just think they could invest more into their number one resource: people.
When people are so religious about things arguments become tedious rather fast.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
Im glad that youve given me something that I can take away from this conversation mile. I hadnt really considered it, but I suppose that logic is the closest thing I have to religion. I have a very strong believe in the sanctity and basic truth of logic. Everything Ive posted here can be derived from that I suppose.
I dont subscribe to the belief that nothing is solid in life - that principles are malleable, and that compromise is required on such fundamental issues. I think that there are basic truths to be discovered and tested. Every new experience in life (Im borrowing here) has to be able fit into that basic philosophy without contradiction.
The reason that I go out to pick fights about capitalism, is because Im searching for the contradiction. I want to test my philosophy (yes it is) against every scenario that I can find (eg: Enron, sure the tech bubble would count). I havent found any contradictions yet.
I have, on the other hand, been led to the conclusion that much of what is wrong with the U.S. fiscal policy to date was created during the second world war by a certain semi-socialist who will remain nameless. America prospered from a string of colonies to a world power in the 150 or so years before the second world war in spite of a devastating civil war. During that one presidents term, how far did we stray from our foundations? And how far have we strayed since?
Minimum Wage
Income Tax
Social Security
Extensive Welfare
Universal Health Care
The War on Drugs
Car Safety Belts
Public Schools
Affirmative Action
The list of atrocities (and attempted atrocities) goes on and on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't weighed in on the minimum wage battle yet,
try not to let my ramblings scare you away from posting.
I dont subscribe to the belief that nothing is solid in life - that principles are malleable, and that compromise is required on such fundamental issues. I think that there are basic truths to be discovered and tested. Every new experience in life (Im borrowing here) has to be able fit into that basic philosophy without contradiction.
The reason that I go out to pick fights about capitalism, is because Im searching for the contradiction. I want to test my philosophy (yes it is) against every scenario that I can find (eg: Enron, sure the tech bubble would count). I havent found any contradictions yet.
I have, on the other hand, been led to the conclusion that much of what is wrong with the U.S. fiscal policy to date was created during the second world war by a certain semi-socialist who will remain nameless. America prospered from a string of colonies to a world power in the 150 or so years before the second world war in spite of a devastating civil war. During that one presidents term, how far did we stray from our foundations? And how far have we strayed since?
Minimum Wage
Income Tax
Social Security
Extensive Welfare
Universal Health Care
The War on Drugs
Car Safety Belts
Public Schools
Affirmative Action
The list of atrocities (and attempted atrocities) goes on and on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't weighed in on the minimum wage battle yet,
try not to let my ramblings scare you away from posting.
- 10,832
The fact that you include car safety belts and public schools in that list tells me all I need to know. You are a right wing fanatic. Your reliance on "logic" and your insitence that everything must conform to it is no different from Christian extremism, and I would'nt be surprised if you were that, too.
Corporate America could take a lesson from the Marine Corps. "No man left behind." Simple. Decent.
But instead they use your "philosophy." "Every man for himself." Your thinking is dangerous for humanity. It has a tough skin and a marangue core. So in that light I can rest assured that you and your ilk will be selcted out of the picture over time. What is necessary always comes to be. What is not always passes away. The pathologically cynical type, of which you are representative, is weak and already on the way out. Don't hold your breath, civilization won't regress for you.
Lastly, don't try to call your political diarrhea "philosophy." I understand how it must make you feel even more self righteous, but philosophers could never be bothered with the superficiality of this discussion. Politicians and economists get their philosophy third hand. You may be familiar with a theory, which may be derivative of a part of a certain philosophy, but please don't prevaricate yourself as a man with a philosphy. It's embarassing.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
Milefile:
Whew! Thats a lot to take in. You made so many good points about um wait a minute.. Ill come up with one hmmm this is harder than I thought.
Actually you didnt make any points. You just called me names. Let me see if I can list them out, you called me brainwashed, fanatic, extreme, dangerous, cynical, weak, self-righteous, and embarrassing. And you implied quite a lot else about me.
I understand that at this point, you hate me and everything I stand for. I totally get the fact that my comments offend you.
If you were truly correct in your own political opinions, you could actually hold a solid conversation with me presenting arguments and counter arguments instead of resorting to this sort of grade school name calling.
Milefile, you need to mature a bit before you decide to enter in to these kinds of conversations. I hope that little tantrum helped you calm down a bit. Ill start another thread about car safety belts so that I can present some reasoning behind my claims that laws about them are bad.
Whew! Thats a lot to take in. You made so many good points about um wait a minute.. Ill come up with one hmmm this is harder than I thought.
Actually you didnt make any points. You just called me names. Let me see if I can list them out, you called me brainwashed, fanatic, extreme, dangerous, cynical, weak, self-righteous, and embarrassing. And you implied quite a lot else about me.
I understand that at this point, you hate me and everything I stand for. I totally get the fact that my comments offend you.
If you were truly correct in your own political opinions, you could actually hold a solid conversation with me presenting arguments and counter arguments instead of resorting to this sort of grade school name calling.
Milefile, you need to mature a bit before you decide to enter in to these kinds of conversations. I hope that little tantrum helped you calm down a bit. Ill start another thread about car safety belts so that I can present some reasoning behind my claims that laws about them are bad.
- 2,732
Well, I guess I used the wrong word, unless you're working for an oil company and have to buy your gas from them.
I should have said that it would be wrong to work for the company if it didn't pay you enough to cover transportation expenses(that is, assuming that you don't use plane tickets to get to work and back, I was using the idea of either $$ for a local train, bus, lightrail ride or driving to work without having to refuel after you start with a full tank of gas when you depart.
Similar threads
- Poll
