(July 28, 2012 at 9:50 am)jackman Wrote: i can't really believe you don't see how wrong this is. it's like going to eat at a 4-star restaurant and tipping the server $1 for her time, when an appropriate tip may be $20. considering their salary is partially reduced below minwage since they're expected to get tips. it's completely rude and doesn't do anything for the economy, it makes another disgruntled employee who is gone all day (at work) yet can't afford the bus pass that would take him there daily. it could spin off into tons of bad things, besides workplace morale and criminality to get more money to survive properly. if you're on welfare here, you're doing much better than someone who would make less than minwage - so why bother working? you could sit home on your hump and make money.No, I don't see what is wrong with it. The wage for a job is the result of two things:
1) How much the employer is willing to pay a person to do it.
2) How little the potential employee is willing to accept for doing it.
The wage is determined as a value that lies between those two extremes.
The problem with minimum wage is that it is the government deciding that every single possible job is worth $x and above, where $x is the minimum wage, and that simply is not the case. There are people who would rather work for less than $x than not have a job, and there are employers who do not value certain jobs as being worth $x and above.
Why isn't the minimum wage $20? Why not $50? If it were that high, unemployment would skyrocket, because small business would not be able to afford to pay people and would go bankrupt, and big business would simply move all low-paid jobs to a country which doesn't have such laws.
As for welfare, well I don't agree with that either. If you are on welfare, you should not be allowed to simply sit at home all day. You should be actively seeking work, and if you don't, you don't get paid. Welfare should be an absolute minimum amount as well, to convince people that getting a job is much better.
Quote:ok man. they're not competing for the shiny things as much as the status that they're the recognized best in the world at what they do. btw, if shiny medals are so bad, why do we use them for posts and years? lol.Right, and that can be done without all the ridiculous spending on ceremonies and everything else that comes hand in hand with the Olympics. Look, I love sport, I watch Wimbledon and football. The thing is, Wimbledon isn't funded by the taxpayer, it's funded by the people who go and watch it. Likewise, the leagues in football are funded by the people who watch the matches. I'm fine with that; if people want to spend their own money on that, fine. My problem is with the government spending my money for me, on things that are utterly irrelevant compared with feeding and sheltering homeless people, some of which include children.
As for your question on why we use medals here, I honestly hope you realise there is a difference between actual gold and a picture of gold...
Quote:i won't try to defend them anymore, i assumed this lot was supposed to be an open-minded crew - don't knock people based on their race, the sexuality, etc... except the athletes, they're just dumb! ok, i've lost interest. i like the damn olympics and appreciate the work they put in to be the best.Never said they were dumb. I appreciate the work they put in too, but it's not worth £9 billion to have them all in one place for two weeks in order to see who is the best, not to me, and not the country.
