Mininum Wage Protest
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2013, 06:34 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 06:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 06:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  It only seems that way to you. I told you why your questions were not applicable to the discussion.

Chas, anytime someone is trapped in a debate with a question that they cannot answer, and they are unwilling to admit it, they will ALWAYS say the question is irrelevant or find some similar excuse to not answer the question. _IF_, however, you weren't trapped, you would (a) answer the question, and (b) then make me look stupid for asking such an irrelevant question. But when you refuse to answer the question, you're admitting that you know it is actually IS relevant and applicable. Otherwise there'd be no harm in answering it.

Your questions are meaningless to the discussion. I explained why.

Quote:
(05-12-2013 06:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I gave you an assumption from which you seem to be running.

I'm not sure what assumption you're referring to. Please specify the assumption, and I will show you that I will NEVER under any circumstances run from your assumption. You can ask my ANY question you want as well, and I will answer it head on. I will show you that if you throw an assumption at me that contradicts what I believe, I will happily say "guess I must be wrong", and I'll adjust my thinking.

It's that quality that makes one a libertarian, after all, since every human instinctively believes their opinion is right, others are wrong, and they have the right to force their opinion. However, if you're willing to say "gosh, maybe it's ME that's wrong, or maybe this is just an opinion and there is no right or wrong answer and I should just let everyone exercise their free will (ie liberty)", well then you change. You stop trying to use force to make other people do it your way, which is the one sole defining characteristic of classic liberalism (libertarianism).

The axiom is that every job deserves a living wage.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 06:48 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your questions are meaningless to the discussion. I explained why.

If they were meaningless, there'd be no harm in answering them. Note that you can ask me any meaningless, irrelevant, inapplicable question you want and I will answer it directly. Why aren't you able to do the same?

(05-12-2013 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  The axiom [I was running from] is that every job deserves a living wage.

Chas, no surprise there. I did NOT run from it, but, just I promised, I answered it directly (see quote below). You just didn't like the answer, so your mind blocked it and you convinced yourself I ran from it. To prove how I'll answer every challenge you want to throw my way, I'll answer it a different way:

Although not everyone agrees with us, I _DO_ agree with you that every job deserves a living wage. Just like I believe everybody deserves a soul-mate, and every act of kindness deserves appreciation, and every charitable act deserves a 'thank you'. As I mentioned, I'm not one of those right-wing conservative types. I'm naturally a left-ist liberal, like you, and share the same values and opinions you do. I share your goal that everybody should be paid a living wage and like you, I find it deplorable that people are working for $7.25/hour. Frankly, even $15/hour is still deplorable. The _ONLY_ thing I disagree with you on is that the way to achieve that goal is by using force (ie law enforcement) to coerce people into paying a higher wage against their will. I agree with you that's the obvious solution. It's the first one that comes to everyone's mind, and it sounds so easy and simple. But, because I reject it on moral grounds since it is not reciprocal (ie threatening employers with violence who themselves are not initiating violence), therefore I am forced to really analyze the situation much more carefully and find out WHY the wages are low and what is driving the poverty.

See my post to Bryan a couple hours ago. Are you willing to answer those 'WHY' questions I posed Bryan? If you were serious about helping poor people, isn't it reasonable to take a minute to ask yourself why they're poor in the first place, and to look at what has been successful at eliminating poverty? If you hastily decide to use violence to solve the problem without taking the time to ponder the root cause, isn't it possible you're going to do more harm than good?

(05-12-2013 02:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I wish Cjlr and Hafnof would chime in. An axiom by definition is a statement that is universally accepted as true without controversy. The "axiom" which I presented, and which they insisted did not fit that definition, was that "100,000x200 is greater than 100,000x2". If that statement which I made does not fit the definition of being universally accepted as true, I'm curious how they would rate your axiom that "All labor deserves a living wage". To me, that statement is, by its nature, subjective, and not universally accepted, because everybody has a different opinion of what a living wage is. Do you feel that the definition of "a living wage" is universal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
Chas,

As a PS, consider: The gilded age (late 19th century) was imo a pretty dark time for free-market capitalism in the US. That's when the uber-rich were competing with each other to build the most ostentation castle they could in Newport, RI, and that's when “social darwinism” was popular among the rich, namely the belief that charity is evil because it's helping poor people who should die off to improve the gene pool. And the government did nothing to help. There was no income tax at all, no welfare program, no minimum wage, zero government assistance for the poor, and an all-out war on charity to kill off “undesirables”.

Yet, even in that darkest hour of free-market capitalism, when the government occupied <3% of the gdp, inequality was LESS than it is today. Can you really ignore the possibility that all these attempts to “fix” the problem are just making it worse?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 07:34 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 06:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your questions are meaningless to the discussion. I explained why.

If they were meaningless, there'd be no harm in answering them. Note that you can ask me any meaningless, irrelevant, inapplicable question you want and I will answer it directly. Why aren't you able to do the same?

I don't waste my time with irrelevant questions.

Quote:
(05-12-2013 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  The axiom [I was running from] is that every job deserves a living wage.

Chas, no surprise there. I did NOT run from it, but, just I promised, I answered it directly (see quote below). You just didn't like the answer, so your mind blocked it and you convinced yourself I ran from it. To prove how I'll answer every challenge you want to throw my way, I'll answer it a different way:

Although not everyone agrees with us, I _DO_ agree with you that every job deserves a living wage. Just like I believe everybody deserves a soul-mate, and every act of kindness deserves appreciation, and every charitable act deserves a 'thank you'. As I mentioned, I'm not one of those right-wing conservative types. I'm naturally a left-ist liberal, like you, and share the same values and opinions you do. I share your goal that everybody should be paid a living wage and like you, I find it deplorable that people are working for $7.25/hour. Frankly, even $15/hour is still deplorable. The _ONLY_ thing I disagree with you on is that the way to achieve that goal is by using force (ie law enforcement) to coerce people into paying a higher wage against their will. I agree with you that's the obvious solution. It's the first one that comes to everyone's mind, and it sounds so easy and simple. But, because I reject it on moral grounds since it is not reciprocal (ie threatening employers with violence who themselves are not initiating violence), therefore I am forced to really analyze the situation much more carefully and find out WHY the wages are low and what is driving the poverty.

Exactly where did I say to use force? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.

Quote:See my post to Bryan a couple hours ago. Are you willing to answer those 'WHY' questions I posed Bryan? If you were serious about helping poor people, isn't it reasonable to take a minute to ask yourself why they're poor in the first place, and to look at what has been successful at eliminating poverty? If you hastily decide to use violence to solve the problem without taking the time to ponder the root cause, isn't it possible you're going to do more harm than good?

Where did I advocate using violence? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.


Two very successful businesses I'm familiar with pay a living wage to all their employees.

One is a tire dealer near me. I've been doing business there for about 20 years. Some of the current employees have been there longer than that. The owner pays a living wage and provides decent benefits. Some employees are unskilled, some semi-skilled, some highly-trained.

Another is a burger restaurant in Burlington, Vt. They pay their employees a living wage and decent benefits. They've been in business for decades, some employees have been there for more than 25 years - they've bought houses, raised children, sent them to college on the wages they make.

Both of these businesses are very successful and the owners attribute that success in part to employee productivity and retention. They have loyal employees who help make the businesses successful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly where did I say to use force? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.... Where did I advocate using violence? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.

Okay, I'm sorry, I stand corrected. You didn't specify what method you advocated using to raise wages, so I, wrongly I guess, thought you were proposing using the Fair Labor Standards Act which stipulates that paying below a minimum wage leads to civil penalties, and criminal penalties (ie arrest warrants) for those who continue to resist, and ultimately getting tased or shot if after all that you still resist.

Since that was a silly (and I guess false) assumption, can you please explain to us how you plan to enforce your new desired minimum wage, and what you propose be done if someone staunchly refuses to comply with your request?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 08:00 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 07:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly where did I say to use force? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.... Where did I advocate using violence? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.

Okay, I'm sorry, I stand corrected. You didn't specify what method you advocated using to raise wages, so I, wrongly I guess, thought you were proposing using the Fair Labor Standards Act which stipulates that paying below a minimum wage leads to civil penalties, and criminal penalties (ie arrest warrants) for those who continue to resist, and ultimately getting tased or shot if after all that you still resist.

Since that was a silly (and I guess false) assumption, can you please explain to us how you plan to enforce your new desired minimum wage, and what you propose be done if someone staunchly refuses to comply with your request?

Here is my original statement.

It is primarily an ethical position, but it is good business. I gave examples of two businesses whose owners understand the value of treating employees as human beings.

I would like to see businesses such as these succeed and businesses that try to pay slave wages be unable to hire workers or attract customers.

However, I have no problem with legislation that is favorable to the former and unfavorable to the latter. For instance, only wages over a certain amount are deductible by a business as expenses, or health care must be made available to all employees regardless of hours worked.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, I have no problem with legislation...

Chas, I'm sorry, but you avoided the question again. I said that your plan involved using force to make sure everyone complied. You corrected me that you weren't going to use force. So I asked you to tell me how you plan to accomplish this then. If you don't answer it'd make it look like I knew your position better than you yourself. You don't want that to happen. So, please, explain how this legislation will work, how will it be enforced, and what will happen to employers who stubbornly refuse to comply no matter what administrative measures you use?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 10:38 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 05:48 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 03:35 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I got nothing against poor people trying to work their way up calm ya tits son.

It's the likes of Brian who've flipped burgers or washed dishes their whole lives and who have done nothing about it but complain about how society and the man screwed them over.

Listen asshole, this isn't just about me. Idiots like you think "pursuit of happiness means "pursuit of wealth".

I want an educated society even the bottom, a more educated society a more stable society. A society that can pay its bills is less dependent on government, not more. You think I am making poverty some type of loyalty issue? Fuck you!

I have made absolutely no demands that everyone be poor like me. Saying that our bottom is dropping further to the point of creating more poverty is not demanding a Stalin like nanny state where everyone makes the same. FUCKWAD!

I have an honest job that you don't want to do. Your judgmental bullshit is your baggage not mine.

Don't ever set foot where I work I will spit in your food! You jaded selfish judgmental asshole!

Just proves there is no respect for those who work in any capacity, This the problem with America. If brian wants better conditions and pay for those with bad paying jobs, more power to him. its pretty bad that even among atheists a sane conversation is impossible with out childish name-calling. It just reminds me name-calling that Theists resort to when they encounter someone who does not share their beliefs. It feels like the ideological gods of this forum are being insulted.

May i continue to the topic of education. I don't mean to single out anyone for ridicule, but as a honest response. Yes education is a big key to better wages, i would agree with that and most rational people would agree. some people have impediments to learning, eather realized and diagnosed or not diagnosed. Many do make it thought college. In today's economy, there are many people who silently work in low wages jobs with college degrees. That's is the new reality. Unfortunately, in today's American society the lack of respect in work, has pushed many to seek degrees who are not qualified or just not needed. The skilled trades are in a need of labor, but the local university is churning out English majors left and right,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 11:11 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 07:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly where did I say to use force? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.... Where did I advocate using violence? You need to stop making these silly assumptions.

Okay, I'm sorry, I stand corrected. You didn't specify what method you advocated using to raise wages, so I, wrongly I guess, thought you were proposing using the Fair Labor Standards Act which stipulates that paying below a minimum wage leads to civil penalties, and criminal penalties (ie arrest warrants) for those who continue to resist, and ultimately getting tased or shot if after all that you still resist.

Since that was a silly (and I guess false) assumption, can you please explain to us how you plan to enforce your new desired minimum wage, and what you propose be done if someone staunchly refuses to comply with your request?


If I staunchly refuse to stop at stop sign and just do a "rolling stop" or take off the mufflers of my Harley-Davidson. or engage deceptive business practices with my customers, or subject workers to hazardous work conditions without PPE or pay below the minimum wage or the new minimum wage, or use substandard subcontractors for hazardous waste disposal. i will suffer penalties, up to arrest, loss of my business license. its a social contract we all agree on as a society. we and i cant just pick and choose the law we and i can follow. I may agree or disagree, but that is a part of living in society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 11:11 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  If I staunchly refuse to stop at stop sign and just do a "rolling stop" or take off the mufflers of my Harley-Davidson. or engage deceptive business practices with my customers, or subject workers to hazardous work conditions without PPE or pay below the minimum wage or the new minimum wage, or use substandard subcontractors for hazardous waste disposal. i will suffer penalties, up to arrest, loss of my business license. its a social contract we all agree on as a society. we and i cant just pick and choose the law we and i can follow. I may agree or disagree, but that is a part of living in society.

Look up the definition of the social contract. There's one ESSENTIAL component for a social contract, or any contract for that matter: VOLUNTARY.

If the laws which initiate force (police action) are passed at the local/state level, then if you don't like them, you can leave. If you VOLUNTARILY decide to live in a region, then, yes, you have executed a social contract and bind yourself to those laws.

But what if the law is passed at the national level, so there is no place you are legally allowed to live and escape it? Then it is NOT VOLUNTARY, and the social contract is invalid just like any other contract that you did not voluntarily enter into.

So, you need to explain WHY we need nationwide laws on, say, stop signs? Pollution is, of course, cross border, so a catalytic converter on your Harley could be argued to be a national issue. But a muffler is only to limit noise, and they're not loud enough for one state to affect another. So explain WHY we need one noise ordinance for the whole country, and why out in Montana, hundreds of miles from a town, they need the same restrictions on noise as in the middle of Manhattan. THAT is the issue we're debating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: