The principles (or otherwise close relative there of) of free market/capitalism gave us the standard of living we have in the US. This standard of living is significantly higher than the majority of the contemporary world, and would make the ruling class and bourgeois of the past look like paupers. (I brought up Marx a lot, who was a silver spoon spoiled rich boy who pissed through his father’s money writing about how awful people like himself were, so think his lifetime back through Smith at the very least.)
Can anyone really argue with that?
no.
So… This thread’s great minds have come up with the thought of: Hey, the same principles that have gotten us this far aren’t’ really working, because a group of people feel they are underpaid. So rather than ask those people to improve their situation through there own means, or even help them do so, lets not bother to improve their situation, but rather, force the rest of us to pay more for them.
Then the rebuttal: But wouldn’t arbitrary wages increases just bring us back to this same point after some amount of time, say like 3-5 years?
The answer: Yes, but who cares. I don’t even really know what I’m talking about, but I’ll use words like “exploit” “fair” and other subjective emotional adjectives to convince you that I am right, even though I have zero evidence that any idea I have will work towards the goals I want.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The principles (or otherwise close relative there of) of free market/capitalism gave us the standard of living we have in the US. This standard of living is significantly higher than the majority of the contemporary world, and would make the ruling class and bourgeois of the past look like paupers. (I brought up Marx a lot, who was a silver spoon spoiled rich boy who pissed through his father’s money writing about how awful people like himself were, so think his lifetime back through Smith at the very least.)
Can anyone really argue with that?
no.
So… This thread’s great minds have come up with the thought of: Hey, the same principles that have gotten us this far aren’t’ really working, because a group of people feel they are underpaid. So rather than ask those people to improve their situation through there own means, or even help them do so, lets not bother to improve their situation, but rather, force the rest of us to pay more for them.
Then the rebuttal: But wouldn’t arbitrary wages increases just bring us back to this same point after some amount of time, say like 3-5 years?
The answer: Yes, but who cares. I don’t even really know what I’m talking about, but I’ll use words like “exploit” “fair” and other subjective emotional adjectives to convince you that I am right, even though I have zero evidence that any idea I have will work towards the goals I want. [/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It is a failure of our education system, not that everyone’s rights were rightly recognized. Although I feel like you were being sarcastic.
It is interesting to note that quite a few of the classic economists felt that public education was/is a must in order for an economy to thrive. So, some government intervention, and I can only assume, taxation is called for, even from great “defenders” of the free market. [/quote]
Our education system is one of this country’s greatest successes. It has laid the foundation for totalitarianism like nothing else could. I’d say that is a huge success for a government run system.
If someone doesn’t contribute monetarily to/own a piece of something, then why should they have a say in the way it’s run? Would any business do that? That is what our country does. The government is the property of taxpayers. There exists no legitimate right to make decisions regarding something you don’t own.
Thank you for placing “defenders” in quotations. A free market only exists if there is no interference. “Relatively free” or “somewhat free” would be a better description of the market sought by anyone supporting public education while not supporting total government control.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For some perspective; my first job after being an NCO of Marines (In charge of 4-6 Marines most days and as many as 20-30 on occassion) reporting on a couple hundred million dollars in Air Wing expenditures, I made $17 an hour…[/quote]
This is something that legitimately bothers me. The military is touted as being great for a resume, etc. but then men and women come home and look for a job and can’t get a good one. Its always funny and sad. You talk to someone and they are like, “yea I was in charge of a nuclear missile silo while in the Air Force,” and now they are working at a physical labor job because they aren’t “qualified for anything else.” Not sure if serious.
I will repeat. Remedial labor jobs are not meant to be your source of living. If you are working at the bottom level of McDonalds as an adult, and it isn’t temporary until you can find a real job, you have REAL problems.
Not really, no. Not even close. If I need to explain why, it isn’t worth my time to do so to be honest. You seem like a relatively intelligent person so I assume you understand what I’m saying and are just looking to debate. Of which I’m not going to partake.
We had 2 world wars in the last 100 or so years, the thought we wouldn’t have a third is silly. If a country goes 100% free market on their agriculture and imports 90% of its food due to comparative advantage (and absolute in some foodstuffs) and then suddenly loses the ability to import food due to war, and half their population starves to death…
I guess one man’s copout is another man’s well reasoned safe harbor against wide spread famine should history repeat itself. [/quote]
It’s still a copout. Especially knowing all the subsidies that go towards wealthy farmers. This has nothing to do with famine. How can you espouse free markets and the wonders of capitalism and then tout how government intervention is necessary here. Anyone could make similar arguments towards health care, the auto industry, any of the bailouts, etc.
Necessary to prevent possible future disaster. For the good of the nation. Look at history. You can say the SAME thing about almost any government involvement in the marketplace. Let’s keep in mind historically MOST government intervention was because of history i.e. something we “needed” to do at the time.
I understand what you’re saying beans I really do…but it’s a copout at best. Farmers made record profits in 2012 despite absolutely awful conditions. We’re really gonna sit here and be pissed at fast food workers wanting more money and ignore the other people who get more money? Seems tough to do with a straight face.
I think its so smart that they share this kind of information with the lazy public. This way they don’t even have to figure it out on their own. They can just mindlessly forego trying to work and continue being leeches knowing with full confidence they are supporting their family the best they can by doing nothing at all at their current level of usefulness.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For some perspective; my first job after being an NCO of Marines (In charge of 4-6 Marines most days and as many as 20-30 on occassion) reporting on a couple hundred million dollars in Air Wing expenditures, I made $17 an hour…[/quote]
This is something that legitimately bothers me. The military is touted as being great for a resume, etc. but then men and women come home and look for a job and can’t get a good one. Its always funny and sad. You talk to someone and they are like, “yea I was in charge of a nuclear missile silo while in the Air Force,” and now they are working at a physical labor job because they aren’t “qualified for anything else.” Not sure if serious.
I will repeat. Remedial labor jobs are not meant to be your source of living. If you are working at the bottom level of McDonalds as an adult, and it isn’t temporary until you can find a real job, you have REAL problems.
[/quote]
I honestly believe it did zero for me. My service was glossed over on almost every single interview I’ve had since it ended and the 5-point preference is 100% BS in my experience. For more recently jobs (Not my current job) the interviewers were more interested in the job I did for $17 bucks an hour (which was a joke) and my shiny new degree (That I get). I wanted to say, “You know I was a leader of Marines for a several year, but we can talk about this basic joke job a 5 year old could do if you’d like…”
It sounds like Crime sounds like capitalism[/quote]
This is an accurate representation of how far your little “idea” here can travel.
I’m just surprised that anyone who is literate could actually think your statement made sense. [/quote]
And Pittbull said "Blaming Marx for all social programs is like blaming Capitalism for all crime involving money , prostitution, drugs , Murder for hire , theft "
this is where you and I get cross wise , I have trouble thinking you are stupid so I think you are disingenuous
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
LOL @ being completely unaware that one is regurgitating Marx…
And no “a policy that made employers pay a living wage” is not fair to all. Not only can not a single person put a national level dollar amount on what a “living wage” is, it isn’t fair to those that make more than the “living wage”.
This is like trying to talk about multiplication with someone who can barely count to 12. All emotion, no logic or reason. [/quote]
utter nonsense, How is it not fair to some one making more than a living wage ? Got to hear the Answer
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The principles (or otherwise close relative there of) of free market/capitalism gave us the standard of living we have in the US. This standard of living is significantly higher than the majority of the contemporary world, and would make the ruling class and bourgeois of the past look like paupers. (I brought up Marx a lot, who was a silver spoon spoiled rich boy who pissed through his father’s money writing about how awful people like himself were, so think his lifetime back through Smith at the very least.)
Can anyone really argue with that?
no.
So… This thread’s great minds have come up with the thought of: Hey, the same principles that have gotten us this far aren’t’ really working, because a group of people feel they are underpaid. So rather than ask those people to improve their situation through there own means, or even help them do so, lets not bother to improve their situation, but rather, force the rest of us to pay more for them.
Then the rebuttal: But wouldn’t arbitrary wages increases just bring us back to this same point after some amount of time, say like 3-5 years?
The answer: Yes, but who cares. I don’t even really know what I’m talking about, but I’ll use words like “exploit” “fair” and other subjective emotional adjectives to convince you that I am right, even though I have zero evidence that any idea I have will work towards the goals I want. [/quote]
More nonsense , Capitalism has brought the great wealth to the (WEALTHY) and unions have brought the middle class their share
Granted the middle class could not do it with out capitalism and neither could they do it with out labor or the market
Large scale application of this wisdom would lead to extinction in a matter of decades.
[/quote]
Na it would just mean that our tax burden would be lightened and our government might regain some sense because contributing members of society would actually start to surpass the non-contributing leaches in population.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
LOL @ being completely unaware that one is regurgitating Marx…
And no “a policy that made employers pay a living wage” is not fair to all. Not only can not a single person put a national level dollar amount on what a “living wage” is, it isn’t fair to those that make more than the “living wage”.
This is like trying to talk about multiplication with someone who can barely count to 12. All emotion, no logic or reason. [/quote]
utter nonsense, How is it not fair to some one making more than a living wage ? Got to hear the Answer[/quote]
Because in order to pay someone a living wage that is far more than what the job they are doing deserves, companies have to raise prices. That devalues the wage made by those making more than a living wage so in reality they you are actually decreasing the people who actually have a redeemable skills spending power in order to give people who work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds a better wage.
Because in order to pay someone a living wage that is far more than what the job they are doing deserves, companies have to raise prices. That devalues the wage made by those making more than a living wage so in reality they you are actually decreasing the people who actually have a redeemable skills spending power in order to give people who work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds a better wage. [/quote]
While I would agree with your opinion that prices will have to rise , I will contend that we are living in Ronny Reagan’s world of supply side economics . The supply of cheap stuff has eroded the demand side .
The best thing we could do to stimulate the economy is re-re-distribute the wealth that was wrest from the working class since Ronny assaulted the middle class.
Because in order to pay someone a living wage that is far more than what the job they are doing deserves, companies have to raise prices. That devalues the wage made by those making more than a living wage so in reality they you are actually decreasing the people who actually have a redeemable skills spending power in order to give people who work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds a better wage. [/quote]
While I would agree with your opinion that prices will have to rise , I will contend that we are living in Ronny Reagan’s world of supply side economics . The supply of cheap stuff has eroded the demand side .
The best thing we could do to stimulate the economy is re-re-distribute the wealth that was wrest from the working class since Ronny assaulted the middle class.
[/quote]
If I start with 8 apples and you with 2 and we take 3 apples from me and give them to you, did the # of apples increase?
Because in order to pay someone a living wage that is far more than what the job they are doing deserves, companies have to raise prices. That devalues the wage made by those making more than a living wage so in reality they you are actually decreasing the people who actually have a redeemable skills spending power in order to give people who work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds a better wage. [/quote]
While I would agree with your opinion that prices will have to rise , I will contend that we are living in Ronny Reagan’s world of supply side economics . The supply of cheap stuff has eroded the demand side .
The best thing we could do to stimulate the economy is re-re-distribute the wealth that was wrest from the working class since Ronny assaulted the middle class.
[/quote]
If I start with 8 apples and you with 2 and we take 3 apples from me and give them to you, did the # of apples increase?
[/quote]
Well those apples were taken from the working class with in the last 35 years I am saying they should be returned
Because in order to pay someone a living wage that is far more than what the job they are doing deserves, companies have to raise prices. That devalues the wage made by those making more than a living wage so in reality they you are actually decreasing the people who actually have a redeemable skills spending power in order to give people who work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds a better wage. [/quote]
While I would agree with your opinion that prices will have to rise , I will contend that we are living in Ronny Reagan’s world of supply side economics . The supply of cheap stuff has eroded the demand side .
The best thing we could do to stimulate the economy is re-re-distribute the wealth that was wrest from the working class since Ronny assaulted the middle class.
[/quote]
If I start with 8 apples and you with 2 and we take 3 apples from me and give them to you, did the # of apples increase?
[/quote]
Well those apples were taken from the working class with in the last 35 years I am saying they should be returned
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The best thing we could do to stimulate the economy is re-re-distribute the wealth that was wrest from the working class since Ronny assaulted the middle class.
[/quote]