Minimum Wage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dormin111:
Anyone who wants a genuine economic reason as to why minimum wage is harmful (besides the completely valid points that it raises unemployment, hurts the development of inexperienced workers, and generally leads to the impoverishment of minorities) should Google "Say's Law."

You mean that totally outdated idea that's over two centuries old?

Besides, from the first hit when googling that:
Since there have been a great many persisting economic crises historically, one may either reject one or more of the assumptions of Say's law, its reasoning, or its conclusions. Taking the assumptions in turn:
-Circuitists and some post-Keynesians dispute the barter model of money, arguing that money is fundamentally different from commodities, and that credit bubbles can and do cause depressions. Notably, debt owed does not change because the economy has changed.
-Keynes argued that prices are not flexible - for example, workers may not take pay cuts if the result is starvation.

Most of the 'totally valid points' you called have already been refuted in previous discussion by the way. Might want to read back. Paying people unfairly low wages does not increase the number of jobs for instance.

Dormin111:
Supply creates demand.

That's not been true since the early 20th century and stopped when fordism stopped being effective, and it's unlogical to begin with.

Merely the fact that people don't have unlimited money proves that claim wrong.

thaluikhain:

pyrate:
I will tell you a story about a country called Australia. It is a great land where workers actually have rights and they get paid a decent amount. Australia has a minimum wage and compared to many countries it is sky high. You see the minimum wage in Australia is $15.51, more than double that of the US.

Following the theory of the right wing Americans our sky high minimum wage means we suffer from some unemployment problems, especially during these tough economic times. It is not true. Unemployment is sitting at 5%, considerably better than most countries at the moment.

It should be remembered that the cost of living in Australia is somewhat higher than the US, IIRC.

Other than that, yeah, what you said, and any number of things you didn't add.

Well yeah, obviously a high minimum wage is going to increase the cost of goods and services, especially in areas that are minimum wage. It is however more than made up with in higher wages. The average wage of an Australia at the start of 2011 was nearly $25,000 higher than that of an American.

It is more than just wages though. We have more time off, more award rates, better protection etc. A study in the US found that 26% of 'minimum wage' workers were being paid less than minimum wage, 76% were not paid legally required overtime (with an average of 11 hours of overtime not paid for) and many more violations. Workers simply do not have the protection in the US that we have in Australia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02wage.html

Overall you can see the effect in two key stats. In 2005, in the US, the average wage of a CEO was 262 times that of a worker. In Australia it was 65 times. Australian workers also receive around 10% more of the GDP in pay than our North American counterparts.

Not bad for a country with a minimum wage that according to the US right wing would cause massive economic decline.

pyrate:
Well yeah, obviously a high minimum wage is going to increase the cost of goods and services, especially in areas that are minimum wage. It is however more than made up with in higher wages. The average wage of an Australia at the start of 2011 was nearly $25,000 higher than that of an American.

It is more than just wages though. We have more time off, more award rates, better protection etc. A study in the US found that 26% of 'minimum wage' workers were being paid less than minimum wage, 76% were not paid legally required overtime (with an average of 11 hours of overtime not paid for) and many more violations. Workers simply do not have the protection in the US that we have in Australia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02wage.html

Overall you can see the effect in two key stats. In 2005, in the US, the average wage of a CEO was 262 times that of a worker. In Australia it was 65 times. Australian workers also receive around 10% more of the GDP in pay than our North American counterparts.

Oh, I agree with that, I just thought the cost of living should be mentioned.

pyrate:
Not bad for a country with a minimum wage that according to the US right wing would cause massive economic decline.

Not to mention all the other things that according to the US right wing would cause massive terrible something or other.

You don't pick a job as a laborer or some other menial task by choice. As such, you have very low bargaining power, and therefore negotiating a fair wage is difficult. Before minimum wage laws were passed, laborers and factory workers made only a few CENTS per day. Entire families had to work to just barely survive in some of the worst living conditions in history. Often, children had to stop going to school just to bring in another dollar per week so families could have enough food to not starve.

Minimum wage laws exist to ensure that people like that have enough money to live in acceptable conditions.

UltraHammer:

Wulfheri:
There are too many people looking for a job. It's the same as prices for products, if there are too many products the costs goes down.

So we should just have fewer people living on the earth?

We should go to space and give up luxery and go for real expansion. Now we produce to many useless stuff. We could make things with way better quality but we don't do it and so we keeps going in circels but there should be real growth.

UltraHammer:

The Thinker:
They're trying to, which is why robot-repair men are going to be the only jobs. Until we get robot-repairbots, which is around the time we'll all be living in luxury.

But according to our president, automation is what causes more poverty and unemployment and makes our economy worse. What is your response to that?

With more automation we can produce even more and be more efficient and thus reach more. For some it will be bad ofcourse.

Yosarian2:
Classical economics predicted that at this point, a bunch of workers would starve to death, and then the when the supply of labor drops the value goes back up.

Don't forget world war 2. That's where the mythos of the American Dream comes from. That war killed about 3% of the world's total estimated population at that time. Doesn't seem like much, but that's over 70 million people, and consider how many of those deaths were disproportionately prime members of the work force. How many more wounded who lost limbs, removed people permanently from the work force?

Basically, I'd guess that WW2 made 10% - 15% of the work force disappear in a short while. After the war there was plenty of work to do and if you were still healthy enough to do it you were most likely making bank because of the need for labor.

I don't think the boomers understood this and they just thought their parents made that much money because USA #1! Now the boomers are still working because they blew all their dough and their pensions are gone. When they finally do retire or drop dead, many countries will get a temporary break and younger people can finally make some money.

But what I think really regulates the cycle is war and or disease.

It exists or we become China

People always like to believe that business is inherently good, when they actually don't give a shit about you

UltraHammer:

Yosarian2:
...there will be times in the economic cycle where the value of labor falls until what people earn is less than what they need to survive. Classical economics predicted that at this point, a bunch of workers would starve to death, and then the when the supply of labor drops the value goes back up.

So more workers = lower pay for workers, because there's more people fighting to obtain fewer jobs. This implies that there are a fixed number of jobs in the world; that if a bunch of new people were to be created, we wouldn't be able to come up with anything for them to do.

So therefore, in the mid 20th century, when the baby boomers were growing up, the value of labor would have dropped significantly and hurt the economy badly.

No, it's not that simple. Clearly more people means more workers, but it also means more consumers, so it increases both the supply of labor and the demand for labor. More people, by itself, doesn't increase or decrease unemployment.

Everything in economics goes up and down over time. Any commodity will go up and then go down. If it's left completly to the free market, there will be points in the buisness cycle where wages fall to such a level that it's less then people need to survive. That's why you have to regulate it.

Yosarian2:
It also puts upward pressure on the wages all the way through the system

So by that same token, we should be regulating the price of other things. Like housing; we should put limits on how much apartments can charge for rent. We should also mandate food not charge more than a certain amount, right?

No, because those things both have serious negitive conseqences. If you limit the cost of rent, then the quality of apartments will fall. If you limit the price on food, it might cause shortages (we do limit the price on a couple of things, like milk, but you don't want to have price controls on food in general.)

Yosarian2:
...losing a small number of jobs that pay less than starvation wages is a small price to pay for raising the wages and thus the standard of living of every worker in society.

So with minimum wage, every worker in society benefits, except for the people with the lowest wages, who will lose their job. That's the tradeoff here?

Basically. You don't want to push minimum wage too high, because then it will significantly increase unemployment. At the levels it's at now, though, it's not very significant (you can tell that because when we're not in a recession, in the 1990's and again in the 2000's, unemployment was quite low despite having a minimum wage); and the small number of jobs that would be created, jobs paying less then what is now minimum wage, wouldn't be enough to live on.

Anyway, think about this. Who would this help, really? In theory, getting rid of minimum wage might help the businesses that employ a large number of minimum wage workers (Walmart, McDonalds, ect). But if you think about it, lowering the minimum wage to, say, $3 an hour might cut their expenses, but it would also dramatically lower the buying power of the working poor, who are also a main source of customers to those buisness. In the end, it might even hurt those buisnesses more then it would help them.

OneCatch :
And there's the added disadvantage that corporations might not look at it as "Cool, I'm able to afford more employees, yay" but instead "Great, we can drive our costs down without losing any staff". That means more money to shareholders, not trickle down economics.

If that's the case, why don't the corporations just fire all their workers and free themselves from having to pay any wages at all?

Companies have to compete with each other, you know.

If you run a Wall-Mart and pay your employees $7.00 an hour, and the store across town also pays it's employees $7.00 an hour, then you're fine. If the minimum wage goes down, and the store across town starts paying it's employees $5.00 an hour, then you're forced to do the same thing because otherwise the other store has a competitive advantage over you.

Vegosiux:

Dormin111:
The supply creates the demand.

Yeah because there's no such thing as market saturation...of course, just use Occam to cut down the example to pretend that doesn't exist, I suppose.

Let's say, those workers start producing refrigerators instead. First month, they create 10. Then they each buy one. Next month they produce 20 because the businessman has a genius idea. Then the businessman has 20 refrigerators collecting dust, because nobody's going to buy a refrigerator, because they already have one and don't have any use for two more. Supply creates demand my posterior.

In other words: I'm with Magichead on this one, without the patience to spell things out.

You are ignoring the the laws of supply and demand on price. You are correct that in this hyper closed economy, after the next 10 refrigerators were made, nobody would buy them at the original price because most people don't really care to buy 2 refrigerators. Hence the businessman would have to collapse prices to a far lower level to dump this inventory. The new price would be so low that he would not make back what he spent on the costs of production, and with negative profits, the businessman would switch to making another product.

If you think that equates to "demand creating supply," it does not. Demand can encourage supply to move in different directions (different products), but the actual expansion of demand in purchasing power can only naturally and in the long run occur by an expansion in supply.

Dormin111:

You are ignoring the the laws of supply and demand on price. You are correct that in this hyper closed economy, after the next 10 refrigerators were made, nobody would buy them at the original price because most people don't really care to buy 2 refrigerators. Hence the businessman would have to collapse prices to a far lower level to dump this inventory. The new price would be so low that he would not make back what he spent on the costs of production, and with negative profits, the businessman would switch to making another product.

If you think that equates to "demand creating supply," it does not. Demand can encourage supply to move in different directions (different products), but the actual expansion of demand in purchasing power can only naturally and in the long run occur by an expansion in supply.

First, you were the one who set up a hyper closed scenario in order to make your own example, so don't tell me that that was the fault in mine.

Two, what I think is that supply and demand both affect each other, but that neither creates the other, both need to exist for an economy to function.

Blablahb:
You mean that totally outdated idea that's over two centuries old?

You mean you start off your posts with arguments from authority? I suppose free trade is an even worse idea since it is 50+ years older.

Besides, from the first hit when googling that:
Since there have been a great many persisting economic crises historically, one may either reject one or more of the assumptions of Say's law, its reasoning, or its conclusions. Taking the assumptions in turn:
-Circuitists and some post-Keynesians dispute the barter model of money, arguing that money is fundamentally different from commodities, and that credit bubbles can and do cause depressions. Notably, debt owed does not change because the economy has changed.

Prove it.

-Keynes argued that prices are not flexible - for example, workers may not take pay cuts if the result is starvation.

Prove it. As usual, Keynes ignores the role of prices.

So... more arguments from authority.

Most of the 'totally valid points' you called have already been refuted in previous discussion by the way. Might want to read back.

Argument from intimidation, and a false one at that.

Paying people unfairly low wages does not increase the number of jobs for instance.

First, define "unfair" as it pertains to market transactions. Second, explain the monkey logic behind the notion that making something cheaper does not make more people buy it (in other words you are literally claiming that the law of demand does not exist).

That's not been true since the early 20th century and stopped when fordism stopped being effective, and it's unlogical to begin with.

Merely the fact that people don't have unlimited money proves that claim wrong.

Economic principles are infinite an eternal. They are based off of human incentives, which at their most basic level do not change. You have simply made another argument by assertion. What does infinite money have to do with it? The money individuals have is derived from the products created in the economy (supply creates demand) Look to my example for the sake of your own clarification.

Vegosiux:

First, you were the one who set up a hyper closed scenario in order to make your own example, so don't tell me that that was the fault in mine.

I did not mean to imply that.

Two, what I think is that supply and demand both affect each other, but that neither creates the other, both need to exist for an economy to function.

While it is true that they are both required for an economy to function (there is no point in creating supply if there is no one who is demanding it), the expansion of either requires the growth of supply first. If we take the same island scenario and imagine a plane flew overhead and dumped 10,000,000,000 dollars onto the island which was all collected by the workers, the demand in the economy would shoot through the roof. However, since there are no more goods to supply this demand than normal, the only thing that would change is the price of the good and eventually the change of the worker. No one would be any wealthier for it.

Minimum wage law is based on the same faulty economic premise as the 10,000,000,000 dollar dumping scheme. The belief is that if supply is sapped of wealth which is given to demand, not only will supply not shrink, but it will grow. This is nonsense.

Dormin111:

While it is true that they are both required for an economy to function (there is no point in creating supply if there is no one who is demanding it), the expansion of either requires the growth of supply first. If we take the same island scenario and imagine a plane flew overhead and dumped 10,000,000,000 dollars onto the island which was all collected by the workers, the demand in the economy would shoot through the roof. However, since there are no more goods to supply this demand than normal, the only thing that would change is the price of the good and eventually the change of the worker. No one would be any wealthier for it.

Minimum wage law is based on the same faulty economic premise as the 10,000,000,000 dollar dumping scheme. The belief is that if supply is sapped of wealth which is given to demand, not only will supply not shrink, but it will grow. This is nonsense.

So you see economy as a zero-sum game in the end? Interesting, I'd be inclined to agree...but that would also mean that there's no possible way for infedinite growth of wealth, because resources are going to run out sometime.

Actually, a bit of a tangent, but I've always said that banks should have every single penny deposited into their accounts covered for, backed up with resources. Try to pass a law that every bank in the world has to be able to let everyone withdraw all their savings at a moment's notice, and it's a world-economy-shattering-kaboom - but that only shows just how much "wealth" in this world is purely artificial, and has no inherent value. Rich people do not create jobs with their wealth. Rather, they let that wealth sit in a pile and contribute next to nothing to the economy.

But, I believe your blunder is in assuming that "minimum wage" is supposed to be an "economically sound" decision. It's not. It's supposed to be a safety net, a "socially sound" decision. It's there to protect those who would get inevitably oppressed by oligarch was such a protection not in place...and in the long term, it even protects the oligarchs from themselves, or rather, from causing the common mortal to finally be sick of it and want to smash their skulls in.

Short-term thinking isn't good for the economy, it really isn't. But, I suppose that's how it goes. "Why should I care if the entire world breaks 20 years from now when I'm set for life without a worry?" Why indeed, hmmm.

Vegosiux:

So you see economy as a zero-sum game in the end?

No, the exact opposite. The expansion in supply helps both the businessman (he makes more money), and the consumer/worker (he gets higher real wages and can buy more). It is my opposition which sees the economy as a zero sum game. They think that when two individuals come to a mutual agreement about a price and wage, it is "unfair" and that the business side should be arbitrarily punished by coercive state power.

Actually, a bit of a tangent, but I've always said that banks should have every single penny deposited into their accounts covered for, backed up with resources. Try to pass a law that every bank in the world has to be able to let everyone withdraw all their savings at a moment's notice, and it's a world-economy-shattering-kaboom - but that only shows just how much "wealth" in this world is purely artificial, and has no inherent value. Rich people do not create jobs with their wealth. Rather, they let that wealth sit in a pile and contribute next to nothing to the economy.

I think the term you are looking for is "full reserve or 100% reserve banking" which was a common practice prior to the 1800s. I don't heave a problem with fractional reserve banking as long as the state does not interfere with market forces since the "artificial" wealth can actually be productively used.

But, I believe your blunder is in assuming that "minimum wage" is supposed to be an "economically sound" decision. It's not. It's supposed to be a safety net, a "socially sound" decision. It's there to protect those who would get inevitably oppressed by oligarch was such a protection not in place...and in the long term, it even protects the oligarchs from themselves, or rather, from causing the common mortal to finally be sick of it and want to smash their skulls in.

Short-term thinking isn't good for the economy, it really isn't. But, I suppose that's how it goes. "Why should I care if the entire world breaks 20 years from now when I'm set for life without a worry?" Why indeed, hmmm.

At least you admit the minimum wage is not economically sound, many do not. However, I think your error is assuming that "economically sound" is in opposition to "socially sound." Even besides that fact that "economic soundness" leads to growth and higher income for all, there is the notion that minimum wages cause unemployment and act as a barrier to entry to protect low skilled labor from competition.

Not as much "opposition" as it is a matter of priorities. If it turns out to be economically sound, all the better, but that's not why it exists.

Dormin111:

Vegosiux:

Dormin111:
The supply creates the demand.

Yeah because there's no such thing as market saturation...of course, just use Occam to cut down the example to pretend that doesn't exist, I suppose.

Let's say, those workers start producing refrigerators instead. First month, they create 10. Then they each buy one. Next month they produce 20 because the businessman has a genius idea. Then the businessman has 20 refrigerators collecting dust, because nobody's going to buy a refrigerator, because they already have one and don't have any use for two more. Supply creates demand my posterior.

In other words: I'm with Magichead on this one, without the patience to spell things out.

You are ignoring the the laws of supply and demand on price. You are correct that in this hyper closed economy, after the next 10 refrigerators were made, nobody would buy them at the original price because most people don't really care to buy 2 refrigerators. Hence the businessman would have to collapse prices to a far lower level to dump this inventory. The new price would be so low that he would not make back what he spent on the costs of production, and with negative profits, the businessman would switch to making another product.

If you think that equates to "demand creating supply," it does not. Demand can encourage supply to move in different directions (different products), but the actual expansion of demand in purchasing power can only naturally and in the long run occur by an expansion in supply.

Demand does create supply to a degree when the supply in question is manufactured goods. Yes, no amount of extra demand is going to create more oil in the ground, but without demand nobody is going to bother refining that oil into plastic bullshit mp3 players and whatever.

If supply doesn't create demand automatically or else trash and pollution would be the biggest profiting exports of the United States. But yet, we have to pay OTHER PEOPLE to get rid of the shit, rather than them lining up to take it off our hands at cost to themselves. It's almost like there's a giant supply of something and there's negative demand for it.

The only 'supply' that automatically creates demand in consumers is supply of wages. As in them earning more money, so that they can demand more shit.

Wall Street and stockholder dominated style Capitalism as we have it now, where all we do is worship supply, and 'job creators' (even though, unless you're payed from money under a rich man's mattress that he inherited from God, that money still comes from the consumers who buy whatever bullshit it is your peddling) worship is doomed to eventual failure, or at best, a perpetual cycle of decline followed by short rapid growth periods making up what was lost before another systematic period of decline. It's a system that only equates homeostasis as growth, and infinite growth isn't possible, unless there's an underclass somewhere to exploit and 'grow into'.

The system the United States has only works as long as there's a 'China' and 'India' for it to exploit. The problem is there's not infinite Chinas and Indias to exploit, and as those nations modernize and equalize with the West and the United States, in its current system, has nowhere to 'grow into'.

The fact those nations are armed with nuclear weapons also increasingly takes the age old tried and true 'third option' of war off the table, that the West has historically used to remedy this problem in the past.

The rich are seeing that and instead of trying to figure out a new system that has a new model for stability, seek to create a few exploitable base in their own shores, one that's not as well armed.

Damien Granz:

Demand does create supply to a degree when the supply in question is manufactured goods. Yes, no amount of extra demand is going to create more oil in the ground, but without demand nobody is going to bother refining that oil into plastic bullshit mp3 players and whatever.

Was anybody demanding MP3 players before they were invented?

If supply doesn't create demand automatically or else trash and pollution would be the biggest profiting exports of the United States. But yet, we have to pay OTHER PEOPLE to get rid of the shit, rather than them lining up to take it off our hands at cost to themselves. It's almost like there's a giant supply of something and there's negative demand for it.

The only 'supply' that automatically creates demand in consumers is supply of wages. As in them earning more money, so that they can demand more shit.

That last part is the key. All revenues and profits are inevitably paid out in wages or dividends at some point. Even if money is buried in one's backyard, that just causes the remaining money in the economy to increase in value.

Dormin111:

Damien Granz:

Demand does create supply to a degree when the supply in question is manufactured goods. Yes, no amount of extra demand is going to create more oil in the ground, but without demand nobody is going to bother refining that oil into plastic bullshit mp3 players and whatever.

Was anybody demanding MP3 players before they were invented?

Um, yes. People do demand shit that isn't invented a lot. But even if they haven't, it's an unfair question either way. The invention of the MP3 player didn't create the demand for the MP3 player. Plenty of shit is invented every day that has absolutely no demand.

A new supply of rotted garbage isn't going to create demand for garbage. If anything, a giant supply of it will decrease demand as people get their fill of it.

Dormin111:

If supply doesn't create demand automatically or else trash and pollution would be the biggest profiting exports of the United States. But yet, we have to pay OTHER PEOPLE to get rid of the shit, rather than them lining up to take it off our hands at cost to themselves. It's almost like there's a giant supply of something and there's negative demand for it.

The only 'supply' that automatically creates demand in consumers is supply of wages. As in them earning more money, so that they can demand more shit.

That last part is the key. All revenues and profits are inevitably paid out in wages or dividends at some point. Even if money is buried in one's backyard, that just causes the remaining money in the economy to increase in value.

But they're not, in our culture of supply based worship. All the blood in our circulatory system gets clogged up in the rich's pocket.

And it hasn't increased the value of our money either. As the money's spending power reaches less and less far for the poor, prices of goods have to go up, and the value of the dollar has decreased rapidly. Enough so that currencies we would had laughed at 10, 20 years ago are poised to overtake our own.

Damien Granz:

Wall Street and stockholder dominated style Capitalism as we have it now, where all we do is worship supply, and 'job creators' (even though, unless you're payed from money under a rich man's mattress that he inherited from God, that money still comes from the consumers who buy whatever bullshit it is your peddling) worship is doomed to eventual failure, or at best, a perpetual cycle of decline followed by short rapid growth periods making up what was lost before another systematic period of decline. It's a system that only equates homeostasis as growth, and infinite growth isn't possible, unless there's an underclass somewhere to exploit and 'grow into'.

The system the United States has only works as long as there's a 'China' and 'India' for it to exploit. The problem is there's not infinite Chinas and Indias to exploit, and as those nations modernize and equalize with the West and the United States, in its current system, has nowhere to 'grow into'.

First, do not claim to know my motives or beliefs. Second, go back to what I said about Say's Law to get rid of all this much about "underclasses" and "exploitation." Ask yourself, "what would these poor workers be doing if they weren't offered jobs by fancy corporation." (Hint: it involves shoveling shit and potential death if it rains too little... or too much). Ask yourself, if these jobs are so horrible, then why do they VOLUNTARILY accept them? I for one cannot wait till China becomes more powerful and more advanced, than just means more and cheaper shit for me to buy.

Damien Granz:

Um, yes. People do demand shit that isn't invented a lot. But even if they haven't, it's an unfair question either way. The invention of the MP3 player didn't create the demand for the MP3 player. Plenty of shit is invented every day that has absolutely no demand.

Wow, quite a lapse in logic here. Inventing a product does not necessitate that it is demanded, however, a product cannot be demanded if it literally does not exist at a conceptual level. That's because... well, nobody knows that it exists.

More importantly, on an economy-wide scale, the wealth needed to purchase products is derived from the production of the products. This is what the interventionists do not understand. Wealth is a derivative of production. Without production, there is no wealth.

But they're not, in our culture of supply based worship. All the blood in our circulatory system gets clogged up in the rich's pocket.

I guess that is why you are typing on a computer right now and didn't have a 50% chance of dieing within your first year of life. Look around you, are you on a subsistence farm?

And it hasn't increased the value of our money either. As the money's spending power reaches less and less far for the poor, prices of goods have to go up, and the value of the dollar has decreased rapidly. Enough so that currencies we would had laughed at 10, 20 years ago are poised to overtake our own.

And who's fault is that? I HATE the federal reserve and want it to be abolished. Fiat currency is an invention of the state which does not exist in a free market. Direct your rage in the proper direction.

The Thinker:

UltraHammer:

If that's the case, why don't the corporations just fire all their workers and free themselves from having to pay any wages at all?

They're trying to, which is why robot-repair men are going to be the only jobs. Until we get robot-repairbots, which is around the time we'll all be living in luxury.

No, the people who OWN THE ROBOTS will live in luxury., The rest of us will starve until we try to riot, at which point we will be cleanly and efficiently disposed of by the Killbots.

I wish I was sure I was joking.

The Thinker:

In other news, how can we get the labor demand and supply to balance out, Escapists? Too much of the former causes companies to crumble, too much of the latter starves people.

The WPA.

Dormin111:

First, do not claim to know my motives or beliefs.

I didn't claim anything about your personal motives or beliefs, and I don't frankly give a fuck about them. I commented on the system we have, the system you propose we have, and the outcomes of such.

Dormin111:
Second, go back to what I said about Say's Law

A 200 year old discredited law isn't going to do much for your argument of economics any more than if we were discussing chemistry if I brought out of book of alchemy.

Dormin111:
to get rid of all this much about "underclasses" and "exploitation." Ask yourself, "what would these poor workers be doing if they weren't offered jobs by fancy corporation." (Hint: it involves shoveling shit and potential death if it rains too little... or too much).

If your corporations and your little pretend race of Ubermensch parasitic bankers and investors vanished overnight (god forbid), these 'poor workers' would reorganize themselves and pick themselves back up and make and sell their own products to themselves.

Your John Galts can fuck right off and everybody else would pick right back up where they left off. I dare say not even an entire week of work would be lost. Your argument that your Ubermensch corporate bosses and bankers are 'necessary' for society is as comical to me as the notion that kings were necessary for society due to being divinely inspired.

If these 'poor workers' would be doing nothing but 'shoveling shit' it's because land and resource (something that nobody owned) was claimed by somebody else and all they have left is shit to shovel, not because they're incapable of managing themselves without the divine management of kings.

Dormin111:
Ask yourself, if these jobs are so horrible, then why do they VOLUNTARILY accept them?

Because they have no land or resources with which to build their own society, so all they have left is to be exploited by people for daily sustenance?

If you're seriously suggesting that people sent their children into sweatshops because their children thought it was fun and not because they had no other choice, you're fucking insane, and you have absolutely no real life or real world experience on any amount of hardship, and a lack of empathy or understanding of that reality on a level that's almost fucking cartoonish.

I've seen goddamn spoiled toddlers with more ability to understand somebody else's situation than you, and frankly it's sick.

Dormin111:
I for one cannot wait till China becomes more powerful and more advanced, than just means more and cheaper shit for me to buy.

Yes, because having the people we exploit as basically slave labor demand higher wages will certainly make your cheap plastic bullshit cheaper.

Damien Granz:

I didn't claim anything about your personal motives or beliefs, and I don't frankly give a fuck about them. I commented on the system we have, the system you propose we have, and the outcomes of such.

"But they're not, in our culture of supply based worship."

"Wall Street and stockholder dominated style Capitalism as we have it now, where all we do is worship supply, and 'job creators' (even though, unless you're payed from money under a rich man's mattress that he inherited from God, that money still comes from the consumers who buy whatever bullshit it is your peddling) worship is doomed to eventual failure"

You are claiming broad normative knowledge about the entire population. This is pure (cynical) speculation and not founded in reality.

A 200 year old discredited law isn't going to do much for your argument of economics any more than if we were discussing chemistry if I brought out of book of alchemy.

Is that really all you people have, arguments from authority/ ad hominems? I'll be sure to call up my local college and inform the math department that everything Issac Newton worked on is now defunct as his work was conducted 400 years ago.

If your corporations and your little pretend race of Ubermensch parasitic bankers and investors vanished overnight (god forbid), these 'poor workers' would reorganize themselves and pick themselves back up and make and sell their own products to themselves.

Your John Galts can fuck right off and everybody else would pick right back up where they left off. I dare say not even an entire week of work would be lost. Your argument that your Ubermensch corporate bosses and bankers are 'necessary' for society is as comical to me as the notion that kings were necessary for society due to being divinely inspired.

If these 'poor workers' would be doing nothing but 'shoveling shit' it's because land and resource (something that nobody owned) was claimed by somebody else and all they have left is shit to shovel, not because they're incapable of managing themselves without the divine management of kings.

Hahahahah. Marxist drek still lives. This is not worth an articulate response as nothing has been said. I could easily replace every key word in there and throw back equally worthless argument, but it is not worth my effort. If you wish to provide a coherent economic or moral argument, I will listen.

Because they have no land or resources with which to build their own society, so all they have left is to be exploited by people for daily sustenance?

Define "exploited." it is not the capitalist corporations fault that the fedualistic/socialistic Chinese and Indian governments have mistreated their own people.

If you're seriously suggesting that people sent their children into sweatshops because their children thought it was fun and not because they had no other choice, you're fucking insane, and you have absolutely no real life or real world experience on any amount of hardship, and a lack of empathy or understanding of that reality on a level that's almost fucking cartoonish.

Who said anything about fun? I am suggesting that if they did not go to the sweat shops they would either starve, resort to crime, or become prostitutes.

Yes, because having the people we exploit as basically slave labor demand higher wages will certainly make your cheap plastic bullshit cheaper.

Mutually beneficial, voluntarily agreed upon contracts = Slavery

Forcefully robbing people with government might = Freedom

Welcome to Oceania, or Damien Graz's world.

Damien Granz:

If your corporations and your little pretend race of Ubermensch parasitic bankers and investors vanished overnight (god forbid), these 'poor workers' would reorganize themselves and pick themselves back up and make and sell their own products to themselves.

Your John Galts can fuck right off and everybody else would pick right back up where they left off. I dare say not even an entire week of work would be lost. Your argument that your Ubermensch corporate bosses and bankers are 'necessary' for society is as comical to me as the notion that kings were necessary for society due to being divinely inspired.

Hee. I remember back shortly after Obama got elected, there was a fad on rightwing blogs to threaten to "Go Galt", scaling back on work until they were making "only" $249,999 a year, or even worse, quitting completely, denying the rest of us the fruits of their genius.

The general consensus from everyone else who paid any attention to them could be summarized as "Can we help you pack?".

arbane:

No, the people who OWN THE ROBOTS will live in luxury., The rest of us will starve until we try to riot, at which point we will be cleanly and efficiently disposed of by the Killbots.

I wish I was sure I was joking.

Yeah...

The Thinker:

But really, automation does ensure there are less manual jobs, which makes unskilled laborers less employable. Which means we need less of them. But, on the flip-side, if our technology advances enough, we'll all enjoy the benefits! Unless a small group of people controls a large percentage of wealth... hmm...

On the flip-side, again, when all the poor people are killed, all of humanity will be wealthy. So there's that.

The Thinker:

In other news, how can we get the labor demand and supply to balance out, Escapists? Too much of the former causes companies to crumble, too much of the latter starves people.

The WPA.

That is a strategy. Yes. But (if I understand the WPA properly) to have the government pay people for doing jobs for the government, the government needs money. The US needs more money as it is.

UltraHammer:
If that's the case, why don't the corporations just fire all their workers and free themselves from having to pay any wages at all?

Really? Really?? The issue is that employers have discovered a magical formula among low-wage jobs: "Any job that can be done by two people can be done by one for half the cost."

Magichead:
Nevermind minimum wage, a living wage is what people should be advocating for.

Frankly, I'm surprised righties aren't more supportive of the concept; with the current minimum wage in many places, people still aren't paid enough to cover the cost of living, so they end up getting benefits to "top up" their income to a sustainable level. That's essentially the subsidising of private businesses by the government on a MASSIVE scale.

Instead of arguing that we should just abolish benefits, thus making yourself look like a subhuman wanker, why not argue that anyone working full-time should be paid enough to live on by their employer?

Exactly. My last job paid about $8,000 a year. Do you have any idea how hard that sucks? How difficult it is to live on that?

BOOM headshot65:
I dont agree with minimum wage. Yes, it is a good idea in theory, but it doesnt work in practice. Businesses just have to raise prices and unless you are a large corperation (less than 9% of the businesses in the US), you will either have to raise prices or fire/dont hire people (if I was a owner, I would rather keep prices the same but have fewer employees, because customers come where the prices are lowest.) If it makes any difference to my argument, I work minimum wage...and I am against minimum wage (or at least, the $7.25 it is at right now)

No, that's what incompetent business managers do. Lowering prices and firing people is not the only way to turn a profit and beat your competition.

pyrate:
A study in the US found that 26% of 'minimum wage' workers were being paid less than minimum wage, 76% were not paid legally required overtime (with an average of 11 hours of overtime not paid for) and many more violations.

I totally believe that because in my last job I was one of those people.

Dormin111:
Ask yourself, if these jobs are so horrible, then why do they VOLUNTARILY accept them?

Where the hell else am I going to go when those shit jobs are the only ones available in my hometown and I need to put food on the table? I don't see how that changes depending on where that hometown falls on a map or within whatever borders.

And when you have nowhere else to go, your employer has you by the balls and they know it. If you don't think that's a recipe for disaster, you haven't been paying very good attention in history class.

I for one cannot wait till China becomes more powerful and more advanced, than just means more and cheaper shit for me to buy.

We already have cheaper shit for you to buy that comes from China. Trouble is that some of it has a chance of giving you lead poisoning.

DrVornoff:

Where the hell else am I going to go when those shit jobs are the only ones available in my hometown and I need to put food on the table? I don't see how that changes depending on where that hometown falls on a map or within whatever borders.

And when you have nowhere else to go, your employer has you by the balls and they know it. If you don't think that's a recipe for disaster, you haven't been paying very good attention in history class.

And how is that the poverty of the employee the employer's fault or problem? The employer just wants his products to get made and he offers the employees a wage for their labor. The fact that the employee accepts the wage (at the level which you arbitrarily declare to be low) means that the employee is getting a better deal than he would if he had not accepted the job. The only way in which the employer has the employee "by the balls" is that the employer has the right and ability to take away the benefit to the employee which the employer previously bestowed upon him. In which case the employee goes back to subsistence farming and pauperism, the natural alternatives to sweatshop labor.

This whole "exploitation thesis" is utterly devoid relevent context.

I'm entirely against minimum wage.

Being as pitifully low as it is.

Anyone who does a full 40 or so hours per week, should have enough to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and have enough left over to cover medical expenses and a small extra amount to cover some basic luxuries, as everyone deserves the right to live, not just exist.

If this happened, at least in the UK, taxes could drop considerably, which of course would then mean you could lower the minimum wage again until it's balanced against tax.

I say this because SO many working families in the UK need some form of welfare payments.

Working families, I need to repeat, not the Daily Mail's favourite target, dirty dole scum, but people who do a full week's work, and yet still can't afford to pay rent AND eat.

What's crazy is one thing could fix SO much of the UK's problems.

A massive investment in social housing, there's so many landlords getting 1000 or more per month in rent welfare payments, for each property. A huge investment in affordable social housing would stop this and cut the welfare bill by billions.

I'm normally quite 'green' but fuck the green belt, we need places for people to live.

Dormin111:
Who said anything about fun? I am suggesting that if they did not go to the sweat shops they would either starve, resort to crime, or become prostitutes.

That is exactly the point. People shouldn't have to work in a dangerous sweatshop for pennies a day in order to live an honest life.

Godavari:

Dormin111:
Who said anything about fun? I am suggesting that if they did not go to the sweat shops they would either starve, resort to crime, or become prostitutes.

That is exactly the point. People shouldn't have to work in a dangerous sweatshop for pennies a day in order to live an honest life.

"Shouldn't" by what standard? How does one measure it? By the standards of the average 19th century Americans, the people currently living on the American poverty line are extremely wealthy. These are all floating abstractions.

arbane:
Hee. I remember back shortly after Obama got elected, there was a fad on rightwing blogs to threaten to "Go Galt", scaling back on work until they were making "only" $249,999 a year, or even worse, quitting completely, denying the rest of us the fruits of their genius.

The general consensus from everyone else who paid any attention to them could be summarized as "Can we help you pack?".

That's all they do is talk about how great and important they are, worshiping the supply side of economics, and talk a good game about 'voting with your feet'. And yet here they fucking are.

It's because there's increasingly nowhere else that will take their spoiled ruinous asses.

"Let me spill poison in your baby formula"

"..No"

"Fine, I'll go to Europe! They'll let me spill poison in their baby formula!"

Europe:"We don't fucking want you either."

"OK. Well, I'm still here, but if you don't let me spill poison in the baby formula, I SWEAR I'll leave, then there'll be nobody left to manage all this baby formula! It'd take a god among men like me to watch this baby formula!"

"Didn't you just say that the system is set up to find the geniuses among us everyman so we can grow into you? And now you're saying that only you are capable of doing this job?"

"..Shut your goddamn mouth! Hippies!"

Dormin111:

You are claiming broad normative knowledge about the entire population. This is pure (cynical) speculation and not founded in reality.

I was unaware that you, personally, were a broad consensus of all people. Oh, wait you're still not.

Dormin111:
Is that really all you people have, arguments from authority/ ad hominems? I'll be sure to call up my local college and inform the math department that everything Issac Newton worked on is now defunct as his work was conducted 400 years ago.

Maybe you can stop missing the 'and debunked' part of that statement then. By the way, while Newton was a genius in his own time, most of his own findings were flawed too, if just because further evidence doesn't support them.

Newtonian physics, while a good introductory method of getting children to understand physics, and while revolutionary and genius in its time, isn't the accepted scientific model anymore.

Dormin111:
Hahahahah. Marxist drek still lives. This is not worth an articulate response as nothing has been said. I could easily replace every key word in there and throw back equally worthless argument, but it is not worth my effort. If you wish to provide a coherent economic or moral argument, I will listen.

It's not Marxist. It's realistic. I didn't say that those workers would create a communistic society. Or a socialistic society. Actually I alluded that nothing in that case would change.

Dormin111:
Define "exploited." it is not the capitalist corporations fault that the fedualistic/socialistic Chinese and Indian governments have mistreated their own people.

We sure as shit exploit them, and the West has for centuries. You say say that you don't give a shit and we don't owe them anything, but it's not a situation that can or will or even should last forever with the progress of distribution, communication and weapons technology as it is.

The idea of infinite growth into others nations is going to become one that's infeasible. We can either learn and change, or fail to and falter.

Dormin111:
Who said anything about fun? I am suggesting that if they did not go to the sweat shops they would either starve, resort to crime, or become prostitutes.

And why is that their only choices? Through what fault of their own, as children, is that their only options? Because somebody exploited them.

Dormin111:
Mutually beneficial, voluntarily agreed upon contracts = Slavery

You're the one peddling the idea that these contracts are mutually beneficial. Again, going to that child labor issue above. Their choices are harmful situation, harmful situation, harmful situation or death.

They might choose one poison over another 'voluntarily' at the point of the gun of starvation, but it's hardly because they wanted to. It's because the system was set up to give them absolutely no other choice.

Dormin111:
Forcefully robbing people with government might = Freedom

You want to play that stupid game?

Ok.

Taking land and resources that doesn't belong to you as a private, but wealthy citizen, then deciding what happens to it by yourself = venture capitalism.

Taking land and resources that doesn't belong to you as a collective national venture, then collectively deciding what happens to it = government invasion?

Bullshit. I see absolutely no fucking difference between a crowned king and a CEO. Both takes what isn't theirs and claims some moral right to it by virtue of being around, then tries to get you to work that territory on threat of starvation.

At least in a democracy I get .4ths of a person in votes (I'd get more if I lived in Nebraska).

But, taking land that doesn't belong to you as a private, but poor citizen = squatting/theft.

Because it's OK if the rich do it, but only then.

Paying rent on land that doesn't belong to you as a private, but poor citizen = good times.

Paying taxes on resources that doesn't belong to you as private, but wealthy citizen = government enforced theft?

Welcome to Oceania, Dormin style, where if the poor pay for something it's called capitalism, but if the rich pay for something it's called theft. Because quoting 1984 automatically

Jog right the fuck on with that.

The problem is that you seem to think that you have some automatic divine right to the planet (you don't), and that you have some automatic legal right to the planet (you don't, the government already has that right).

Your problem is that, if YOU believe you own something, you want to charge people money to use it. If somebody ELSE believes they own something, then you want to do what you wanted to do anyways and not pay your own dues back. You're selfish, in a transparent, childish and cartoonish way, like I said.

You don't own money, legally. You don't own the land or resources to make your wealth, legally. You never have. The government, and the collective of its citizens (which it derives its right to rule) does and always has.

You are a shareholder, a stockholder, in the country. You're automatically enrolled at birth by virtue of your parents power of attorney. You are free to leave at any time (but not necessarily free to have everywhere you want to go open to you. Just because I quit a lease in my apartment doesn't mean that every apartment on earth has to give me whatever lease I want, same is true here). You have partial ownership of things, but not total, in the same way that if I buy a share in Wal-Mart I don't get to dictate all of that franchise's policies nor do I get infinite free shit.

You can lease property to manage, because the government and the people collectively believe that the private citizen can create wealth better in many cases, and for the most parts, you are allowed to do whatever you want with what you build.

But NO DIFFERENT than any autoworker that builds a car in the factory, you don't get to keep everything you build. You get your cut, and the government takes its fees back in taxes. No different than an auto factory taking the car you just built to sell somewhere else, and no different than a landlord taking his fees out in rent.

If you don't like the terms of your agreement you have two legal options. Move the fuck out, or vote. Just because your vote doesn't automatically get you everything you want, again, is not reason for you to call the system theft. Can't find a better place (or aren't accepted there?)? Too bad. It's not Europe or Asia's or anywhere else's obligation to find you a better place, any more than it's Toyota's obligation to make me the perfect car that only I want for exactly the price I want.

You as an employer pay your workers a minimal wage and have to adhere to a minimal standard of conduct with them (avoiding discrimination, quid pro quo sexual favors or harassment, OSHA, etc.) because we, collectively, as a nation, decided that if you're going to use our public resources to make your private wealth, but can't do so without being a total fucking douchebag about it, that you're no longer handling such matters more efficiently as the government, and that right is taken away from you.

Which is absolutely no different than a McDonald's franchise being sold away because it doesn't meet whatever goals or ideals that McDonald's says it should.

Libertarians like you are actually worse than a squatter or a thief, though, because at least if a thief steals shit from me he doesn't stick around to tell me how I owe him more shit and how I was in the wrong for owning shit in the first place.

It's not about the government taking shit away from you that is yours. It's about you refusing to pay rent for a piece of property you build your business on. Tough shit, I have no tears for that.

And you know what? I might be more inclined to give a fuck if the people owning such property weren't making so much money, you know that? I might be incline to go "Hey, they're having a hard time, let's cut them a break in their payments so they can make do".

But those motherfuckers don't need the pity (the gap between the wealthy and the poor isn't goin' nowhere any time soon, so they're not exactly hurting) and they won't do the same back. Because they think it's their god given right to take what isn't theirs and fuck everyone around them with it.

If the gap was small, and the wealthy were actually doing badly, and maybe if they were a bit more humble once in a fucking while, I might be more inclined to give them more breaks. But they're not. And it'd be no different than if you saw a starving orphan come in and ask for a slice of bread, compared to some sort of fucking guy in a 30,000 dollar suit asking for the same.

This argument that if you have to pay rent it's theft (and that if the police make you, it's violence), but if other have to pay you rent it's capitalism (and that if the police make them, it's just 'enforcing a contract) is goddamn stupid, and I'm tired of it and the naive smart mouthed children that profess it.

Dormin111:

"Shouldn't" by what standard? How does one measure it? By the standards of the average 19th century Americans, the people currently living on the American poverty line are extremely wealthy. These are all floating abstractions.

"Shouldn't" as in "shouldn't". As in "That should not happen. Ever."

Quit mincing words.

Dormin111:

Godavari:

Dormin111:
Who said anything about fun? I am suggesting that if they did not go to the sweat shops they would either starve, resort to crime, or become prostitutes.

That is exactly the point. People shouldn't have to work in a dangerous sweatshop for pennies a day in order to live an honest life.

"Shouldn't" by what standard? How does one measure it? By the standards of the average 19th century Americans, the people currently living on the American poverty line are extremely wealthy. These are all floating abstractions.

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

Godavari:

Dormin111:

Godavari:

That is exactly the point. People shouldn't have to work in a dangerous sweatshop for pennies a day in order to live an honest life.

"Shouldn't" by what standard? How does one measure it? By the standards of the average 19th century Americans, the people currently living on the American poverty line are extremely wealthy. These are all floating abstractions.

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

The only time they shouldn't be afforded such is in the rare case that it's impossible to do so. But that's hardly the case in the 21st century.

If say you were on some sort of Gilligan's Island, I could see the need to become barbaric to survive.

But to claim that the wealthy in America need to become barbaric to survive.. I'm not buying that a bit.

Edit: Further, to claim they need to be barbaric to survive, but we shouldn't become likewise barbaric back, is just to assume us fools, and if we listen to them, to prove us as such.

Damien Granz:

I was unaware that you, personally, were a broad consensus of all people. Oh, wait you're still not.

Wow. So, "everyone thinks this way" is more valid then "most people don't think this way." Do i even really need to point out the fallacy?

Maybe you can stop missing the 'and debunked' part of that statement then.

Which you demonstrated by.... stating it. Ok, I shall do the same. You are wrong.

It's not Marxist. It's realistic. I didn't say that those workers would create a communistic society. Or a socialistic society. Actually I alluded that nothing in that case would change.

You are using Marxist premises. For instance, workers produce value and capitalists leach off of it.

We sure as shit exploit them, and the West has for centuries.

Again, define it.

You say say that you don't give a shit and we don't owe them anything, but it's not a situation that can or will or even should last forever with the progress of distribution, communication and weapons technology as it is.

Another Marxist premise, wealth is distributed

The idea of infinite growth into others nations is going to become one that's infeasible. We can either learn and change, or fail to and falter.

So said Thomas Malthus in 1800. So said plenty of bullshit resource economist and sociologists throughout history. Funny how this collapse never arrives. I have no doubt I'll be hearing the same theories for the rest of my life.

And why is that their only choices? Through what fault of their own, as children, is that their only options? Because somebody exploited them.

Who exploited them? Chinese lords 500 years ago? Maybe so. How is that the corporation's problem? The corporation is improving the situation by giving them an alternative.

You're the one peddling the idea that these contracts are mutually beneficial. Again, going to that child labor issue above. Their choices are harmful situation, harmful situation, harmful situation or death.

They might choose one poison over another 'voluntarily' at the point of the gun of starvation, but it's hardly because they wanted to. It's because the system was set up to give them absolutely no other choice.

Again, how is this a company's problem or fault? The companies did not create these situations. Poverty is the natural state of man.

You want to play that stupid game?

Ok.

Taking land and resources that doesn't belong to you as a private, but wealthy citizen, then deciding what happens to it by yourself = venture capitalism.

What land is this?

Bullshit. I see absolutely no fucking difference between a crowned king and a CEO. Both takes what isn't theirs and claims some moral right to it by virtue of being around, then tries to get you to work that territory on threat of starvation.

How about one attains his position by creating products and services which other people value and then trading them. He then uses his own wealth and the wealth voluntarily loaned to him by others to improve his and his customers lives.

The other declares his position by his genetic lineage and then uses force to take what he pleases because he controls a monopoly on force within his territory.

The problem is that you seem to think that you have some automatic divine right to the planet (you don't), and that you have some automatic legal right to the planet (you don't, the government already has that right).

I honestly have no idea what you are going on about with this land stuff. Do you not believe in the private ownership of land? That would be another Marxist premise.

Your problem is that, if YOU believe you own something, you want to charge people money to use it. If somebody ELSE believes they own something, then you want to do what you wanted to do anyways and not pay your own dues back. You're selfish, in a transparent, childish and cartoonish way, like I said.

You should ease up on your rambling because you are falling further into incoherency. Who do I owe money to?

You don't own money, legally. You don't own the land or resources to make your wealth, legally. You never have. The government, and the collective of its citizens (which it derives its right to rule) does and always has.

You don't own life, legally. You don't own your body or your conscious, legally. You never have. The government, and the collective of its citizens (which it derives its right to rule) does and always has. Vote Hitler and every other genocidal maniac. (Note: I do not actually believe this, but if you get to make ridiculous assertions with no arguments, then I will too).

You are a shareholder, a stockholder, in the country. You're automatically enrolled at birth by virtue of your parents power of attorney.

I never consented to this.

You are free to leave at any time (but not necessarily free to have everywhere you want to go open to you.

Why should I leave? Why does the state own everything by default?

You can lease property to manage, because the government and the people collectively believe that the private citizen can create wealth better in many cases, and for the most parts, you are allowed to do whatever you want with what you build.

OH MY! THANK YOU MASTER. YOU AND YOUR BENEVOLENT BUREAUCRATIC COHORTS HAVE GRANTED ME THE PRIVILEGE OF USING MY OWN BODY IN LIMITED VOLUNTARY CONTRACT. ALL HAIL THE ETERNAL LORD OF THE STATE!!!

If you don't like the terms of your agreement you have two legal options. Move the fuck out, or vote. Just because your vote doesn't automatically get you everything you want, again, is not reason for you to call the system theft. Can't find a better place (or aren't accepted there?)? Too bad. It's not Europe or Asia's or anywhere else's obligation to find you a better place, any more than it's Toyota's obligation to make me the perfect car that only I want for exactly the price I want.

Again, this is all predicated on the absurd notion that the government literally owns everything. From where does it get this power? The people? I am a people and I don't grant it. The majority? So numbers are more important than rights? If the majority wishes to genocide the minority than so be it?

And you know what? I might be more inclined to give a fuck if the people owning such property weren't making so much money, you know that? I might be incline to go "Hey, they're having a hard time, let's cut them a break in their payments so they can make do".

Never before has "I believe wealthy people should be treated as second class citizens" been more explicitly professed.

To sum up the social contract argument (which you just rambled about): A bunch of thugs get a bunch of guns and declare everything to be theirs. Anyone who lives within the territory which they claims is theirs can be forced to do anything at gun point or leave. Might rules all! Individual rights are non-existent. Worship the power of force!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked