(February 11, 2013 at 2:52 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Do you look at each issue and generally come to a centrist conclusion, or are you taking each issue, and then applying centrism?

That is a very nice suit...

Quote: But I myself am a centrist, because centrism allows freedom of thought

I don't get what you mean here, do you mean a centrist government would allow freedom of thought compared to the others? It can't be this meaning because the libertarians would (left? Arguable). Or that a centrist philosophy means "come to your own damn conclusions", because it wouldn't mean that either.

Addressing your first point. Instead of adhering to a pre-made ideology, I look at the solution that works. When I say freedom of thought, I mean it opens the door to other ideologies and solutions, instead of just one ideology.

(February 11, 2013 at 2:07 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

Yes, where shelter doesn't cost $1000 a month.

Learn to economy, or don't speak on economy

I said can. No you can't live if you think you need to spend 1000 dollars a month for shelter. But you don't need to. You don't need to live in those places. People are so dumb about what they think they need.

---

(February 11, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

Much of the world lives without reliable drinking water, electricity, medical care or food supply. Is that what you suggest as the ideal situation?

Those people certainly aren't making 7.50 an hour.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 5:33 am)Tiberius Wrote: That is simply not true and you know it. Strike action is still protected in this country; in the past year workers have disrupted many services by striking and the government has protected them at all times.

Well I have to make use of a union, and I can tell you that the law is firmly on the employers side. Yes govenrment and employers play the game of saying that they fully back union involvement, but in reality that amounts to yet more leverage against the employee.

Well it's good that union power is being reduced, but there are still improvements that can be made. Companies who have workers strike should be able to fire those workers and hire new ones to replace them. In the place of striking, contract law should be improved and enforced correctly, and there should be a special service for negotiating changes without the need for strike action.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Much of the world lives without reliable drinking water, electricity, medical care or food supply. Is that what you suggest as the ideal situation?

Those people certainly aren't making 7.50 an hour.

Exactly! This highlights yet another problem with minimum wage: what value do you set it at? Most people who argue in favour of it seem to suggest they support the minimum wage being set to a "living wage"...i.e. the minimum amount people can live on. However, this number is arguably very low indeed...homeless people can live on much less than the minimum wage. It's not a very good life, but it's livable. So, of course, the minimum wage increases to support various other luxuries, becoming much more than a living wage...let's call it the "comfortable living wage".

No, having people without access to power or other luxuries isn't ideal, but neither is massive unemployment and increased dependence on welfare; both are side-effects of having a minimum wage. We aren't all equal in skill, and some jobs are worth much much less than others. I an ideal world, you could have a minimum wage and no unemployment, but we don't live in such a world. We have to have one or the other.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I said can. No you can't live if you think you need to spend 1000 dollars a month for shelter. But you don't need to. You don't need to live in those places. People are so dumb about what they think they need.

I'd love to see you survive interior Alaska's winter without shelter. Not even the natives are so backward as to attempt to live without shelter. Winter storms, mang... do you even lift?

It's true, you can 'survive' in the southern USA without any money at all. But what's the point of that, homeless man? People are so dumb indeed

Edit: I do love how you just swept your failure to understand how local economies work right under the rug. Well played, hooker... 10 fr0d0 points earned! Hope they are worth it

(February 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I'd love to see you survive interior Alaska's winter without shelter. Not even the natives are so backward as to attempt to live without shelter. Winter storms, mang... do you even lift?

It's true, you can 'survive' in the southern USA without any money at all. But what's the point of that, homeless man? People are so dumb indeed

Edit: I do love how you just swept your failure to understand how local economies work right under the rug. Well played, hooker... 10 fr0d0 points earned! Hope they are worth it

What does Alaska's winter, paying 1000 dollars a month for rent, or local economies' have to do with whether or not you can survive on 7.50 an hour. (hint: Clearly you can.) These are some of the more ridiculous red herrings that I've seen. None of those have to do with what I said. Unless you are prepared to refute the claim that one can survive on 7.50 an hour without throwing out some crazy scenario that someone making 7.50 an hour wouldn't be in, then it's all pretty irrelevant to me.

(February 12, 2013 at 5:33 am)Tiberius Wrote: No, but since when does food cost more than $7.25 an hour? The benefits of having a job, even for a very low wage, are numerous. The experience, the possibility for higher wages in the future, the fact that you are earning money rather than earning none at all (or relying on government handouts). All these things are good, and they all get reduced when a minimum wage is in effect.

When is food the only necessity upon which one must spend money?

The fact that many people making minimum wage also rely on government handouts (is it really a handout when you're paying income taxes) illustrates the problem of a low minimum wage.

Quote:It's astounding that you can admit that companies pay more than the legal minimum because it looks good, and yet form a completely contradictory opinion in the next paragraph. Paying employees more always looks good.

I can never have a debate with you and not run into a semantics issue. Yes, Wal-mart and stores like it do pay above minimum. Pennies above minimum. Enough so that it costs the company less than they get with the PR, not enough to make a difference to the employee. Hence, if Wal-Mart had the choice to pay an employee nothing, they would probably choose to toss them a couple of nickels.

Quote:There is no reason to think that Target (or any Wal-Mart competitor) would follow suit with such wage reductions, because keeping your higher wages is going to look much better than Wal-Mart suddenly decreasing them by such a large factor, and it will give you a massive edge over Wal-Mart in the long run.

There is a reason to think this: that's how it already works. Target sets its starting wages based upon what competing Wal-Mart sets theirs, this is something I know for certain. If Wal-Mart lowballs, every bigbox retailer will certainly follow suit. Target, being slightly more classy, might toss out dimes instead of nickels. Good for them.

Quote:Companies aren't run by computerized drones you know; they are run by people who understand how important company appearance is. If a company like Wal-Mart was stupid enough to think paying its employees $1.50 an hour was OK, its competitors would simply cease on the opportunity to point out the ridiculous wages, and use their high wages in comparison to attract more customers and employees.

Why should I believe that would happen if it is not happening now? Wal-Mart is infamous for their poor pay, but this has not ever led its competitors to attack them on this, because none of them do significantly better for their employees.

Quote:From a Wal-Mart employee's perspective, they are going to say "well, now I have a pathetic wage, but I can simply quit and go work for Target instead". The point of competition is that companies can only undercut each other so far. If companies make their prices too low, they risk losing profit, or not being able to hold onto their employees. There are multiple factors which keeps wages high.

You can leave for a competitor, if that competitor is hiring. You can slash prices almost as much as you want when you are charging 200% markup because you buy everything from Asian sweatshops.

When I think of what the libertarian, free-market paradise would look like, what I see is Bangladesh.

CaptAwesome Wrote:I said can. No you can't live if you think you need to spend 1000 dollars a month for shelter. But you don't need to. You don't need to live in those places. People are so dumb about what they think they need.

No, I guess we don't need clean water, nutritious food, reliable shelter or medicine to survive. Living to the ripe old age of 38 sounds like a good idea.

(February 12, 2013 at 3:58 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What does Alaska's winter, paying 1000 dollars a month for rent, or local economies' have to do with whether or not you can survive on 7.50 an hour. (hint: Clearly you can.) These are some of the more ridiculous red herrings that I've seen. None of those have to do with what I said. Unless you are prepared to refute the claim that one can survive on 7.50 an hour without throwing out some crazy scenario that someone making 7.50 an hour wouldn't be in, then it's all pretty irrelevant to me.

Homeless people with jobs manage to die. People who have access to reliable shelter are much less likely to randomly die

Even better when they lose their pathetic job as a result of being homeless.

(February 12, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Ryantology Wrote: When is food the only necessity upon which one must spend money?

...I never said it was. Food just happens to be something which does not come as naturally to us as other things. It is easier to buy food and live under a bridge than it is to buy/rent a home and catch / grow your own food. Hence, in the list of things that I find "necessary", food is right there at the top.

Quote:The fact that many people making minimum wage also rely on government handouts (is it really a handout when you're paying income taxes) illustrates the problem of a low minimum wage.

I'm not sure about what the state of taxes is in the US, but in the UK nobody earning minimum wage is taxed, ergo it is a handout. The fact that people making minimum wage rely on government handout is a problem with corporatism in general, not a low minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $20 an hour would not suddenly mean everyone could stop relying on government handouts for two reasons:

1) If an employer wants to keep its current workforce, it would have to start making more money to make up the loss of hiring people at the new rate, hence prices go up, and when they go up somewhere, they usually go up somewhere else, and somewhere else, etc. So, now everything costs more money...and we're back to people not having enough money for stuff.

2) Alternatively, if the employer decides that $20 is ridiculous to pay, and doesn't want to affect customers by upping the price of goods, they can make a large number of their workforce redundant and increase the amount of work the people left over have to do. This creates a number of unemployed people on welfare, whilst also making a harsher work environment for those who are left in a job.

Quote:I can never have a debate with you and not run into a semantics issue.

Seriously? How on earth was this a semantics issue? I'm not calling into question the definition of anything you've said. I simply pointed out that you recognized the reason why employers pay more than a minimum wage, but then failed to continue that through to the next logical conclusion. That's not semantics; that's just me pointing out flawed reasoning.

Quote:Yes, Wal-mart and stores like it do pay above minimum. Pennies above minimum. Enough so that it costs the company less than they get with the PR, not enough to make a difference to the employee. Hence, if Wal-Mart had the choice to pay an employee nothing, they would probably choose to toss them a couple of nickels.

Again, you recognize that companies do it, and they do it for PR, but then for some reason decide that if the minimum wage wasn't set, this would simply stop, and companies would now just pay pennies...and on top of that, you think people would actually accept this? Would you?

Quote:There is a reason to think this: that's how it already works. Target sets its starting wages based upon what competing Wal-Mart sets theirs, this is something I know for certain. If Wal-Mart lowballs, every bigbox retailer will certainly follow suit. Target, being slightly more classy, might toss out dimes instead of nickels. Good for them.

Can you verify this? If you really know it for certain I mean...

Look, it might work like this under the current system, but that is only because minimum wage is in effect. When corporatism is ended, and the market is actually run by consumers (as it always should have been), then things are a different ballpark. When corporations simply cannot afford to piss off their customers or employees, any company that tries to set wages to unacceptable levels is going to fail, and fail fast.

Also, I'm in favour of enforcing contract law. That is, if a company agrees your salary in a contract, they can't alter it unless both parties agree and sign a new contract.

Quote:Why should I believe that would happen if it is not happening now? Wal-Mart is infamous for their poor pay, but this has not ever led its competitors to attack them on this, because none of them do significantly better for their employees.

See above. When laws protect corporations rather than consumers or employees, corporations can do whatever the hell they like. I'm not saying we should get rid of the minimum wage in the current system; I'm arguing for an overhaul of the system itself.

Quote:You can leave for a competitor, if that competitor is hiring.

...and the great thing about large corporations is that they can always have vacancies, because they are always growing, and they obey the supply/demand of the market. If a large number of employees become available, especially if they come from a competitor, hiring those employees is going to give you a considerable boost in the market, both economically and from a public relations standpoint.

Quote:When I think of what the libertarian, free-market paradise would look like, what I see is Bangladesh.

Probably because you assume capitalism is similar to corporatism, where companies hold all the power. This is not the case.

(February 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In the place of striking, contract law should be improved and enforced correctly, and there should be a special service for negotiating changes without the need for strike action.

Yeah we could get the government to do that or something...

(February 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Companies who have workers strike should be able to fire those workers and hire new ones to replace them.

Would contract law prevent abhorrent behaviour like this?

(February 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...I never said it was. Food just happens to be something which does not come as naturally to us as other things. It is easier to buy food and live under a bridge than it is to buy/rent a home and catch / grow your own food. Hence, in the list of things that I find "necessary", food is right there at the top.

I don't think having food does one much good if you'll freeze to death in cold months, unless you're lucky enough to live where it never gets cold. Of course, that leads to its own problems.

Quote:I'm not sure about what the state of taxes is in the US, but in the UK nobody earning minimum wage is taxed, ergo it is a handout.

1. Minimum wage earners still pay income taxes in the US.
2. Not being taxed is a handout? Do I extrapolate that into tax cuts being handouts?

Quote:1) If an employer wants to keep its current workforce, it would have to start making more money to make up the loss of hiring people at the new rate, hence prices go up, and when they go up somewhere, they usually go up somewhere else, and somewhere else, etc. So, now everything costs more money...and we're back to people not having enough money for stuff.

Many large businesses would need to do no such thing. They would do it, because paying millions in bonuses to CEOs is more important than paying people at the bottom enough for them to eat and afford shelter. And, a significant portion of small businesses have so few employees that the impact would be manageable.

Would some small businesses go under? Sure. But, so what? If you can't afford to pay your employees adequately, you shouldn't be running a business in the first place.

Quote:2) Alternatively, if the employer decides that $20 is ridiculous to pay, and doesn't want to affect customers by upping the price of goods, they can make a large number of their workforce redundant and increase the amount of work the people left over have to do. This creates a number of unemployed people on welfare, whilst also making a harsher work environment for those who are left in a job.

The problem with that is, many of the low-paying jobs in this country can't be outsourced. If the companies existing shrink, others will take the opportunity to rise and fill the gap. Introducing a minimum wage did not end the world, nor has raising it ever done so. Parasitic businesses will fall, new ones, accustomed to the new way things are done, will rise to replace them. Paying employees more does not crush the entrepreneurial spirit except in exploitative employers, and who wants them around?

Quote:Again, you recognize that companies do it, and they do it for PR, but then for some reason decide that if the minimum wage wasn't set, this would simply stop, and companies would now just pay pennies...and on top of that, you think people would actually accept this? Would you?

Yes, they would stop. Because while Wal-Mart would get some negative PR for slashing its wages, that would cease to matter as much once their competitors followed suit. Everyone else is doing it, so why is it wrong when we do?

We live in a society where being employed, even if it's in a shit job, is vital for certain things, so yes, a lot of people would accept it. What choice would they have?

Quote:Can you verify this? If you really know it for certain I mean...

No, I can't. This is what I've heard my bosses say. I have no reason to suspect that they made it up.

Quote:Look, it might work like this under the current system, but that is only because minimum wage is in effect. When corporatism is ended, and the market is actually run by consumers (as it always should have been), then things are a different ballpark. When corporations simply cannot afford to piss off their customers or employees, any company that tries to set wages to unacceptable levels is going to fail, and fail fast.

And how do you propose to end corporatism? How can the free market dissolve corporatism? How can consumers actually do anything about it, when so many rely on huge corporations for so many things?

Quote:Also, I'm in favour of enforcing contract law. That is, if a company agrees your salary in a contract, they can't alter it unless both parties agree and sign a new contract.

Who would enforce it?

Quote:See above. When laws protect corporations rather than consumers or employees, corporations can do whatever the hell they like. I'm not saying we should get rid of the minimum wage in the current system; I'm arguing for an overhaul of the system itself.

When the 'free market' replaces government, the winners in free market will become government. What makes you think they'll not go corporate the moment the opportunity appears, and who could possibly stop them once they do?

Quote:...and the great thing about large corporations is that they can always have vacancies, because they are always growing, and they obey the supply/demand of the market. If a large number of employees become available, especially if they come from a competitor, hiring those employees is going to give you a considerable boost in the market, both economically and from a public relations standpoint.

If Wal-Mart went under, how many retailers could absorb two million + employees? How many would want to? Could all of them, combined, do that?

One major problem with Wal-Mart, in particular, is that Wal-Mart has significant rural presence. In many smaller towns, Wal-Mart is all there is for miles around. If they decided to slash wages, many employees at rural stores would be absolutely fucked, while the stores will persist because there are no other legitimate choices for locals in terms of shopping. Where else could they go?

Quote:Probably because you assume capitalism is similar to corporatism, where companies hold all the power. This is not the case.

Probably because I am not idealistic enough to ever believe that the free market would never transform into a unrestrained corporatist hellhole. I do not trust the free market to police itself. A self-policing free market sounds every bit as much fantasy to me as the old utopias of communism a century ago.