Any other centrist atheists?

[Something completely different]

Most of the atheists I've met are either liberal or libertarian. But I myself am a centrist, because centrism allows freedom of thought. Any other centrist atheists?

I would consider myself a pragmatist. I have voted both conservative and social democrat and usualy vote for the one who wins the argument.

I disregard extremists from all ideological background and believe that for being capable of participating in a democracy a party must be capable to compromise and understand it`s opponents world view.

And worst of all to me are naiv foolish wkos, who no matter how bad the results of their policies are desperatly try to polish shit.

[Tiberius]

And what about when the workers are represented by unions?

I'm not against the idea of unions in general, but in my country, they have far too much power.

Neither of those statements are true. Libertarians are fiscally libertarian and socially libertarian. They both vary greatly from what is generally considered the right and the left.

If you equate "progressive" with "left" and "conservative" with "right" then you'd be correct, but I did not say "socially left and fiscally right", nor did I equate those terms. The left are generally socially progressive, but many forms of leftism are not; likewise, the right are generally fiscally conservative, but many forms of rightism are not. Libertarianism is not a left-wing movement, nor is it a right-wing movement, hence why I called it centrist.

Companies now offer $7.50 an hour, which is chump change, and millions of people say "okay" because being paid chump change is better than being paid nothing. And, people will care about a company's mistreatment of employees only up to a point, hence why places like Wal-Mart remain hugely profitable.

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on Wal-Mart.

I'm glad you agree with me though; being paid something is much better than being paid nothing. Hence why the minimum wage is such a silly concept. Being paid less than minimum wage might suck, but it is better than being paid absolutely nothing.

[Ryantology]

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on Wal-Mart.

I worked for Wal-Mart for seven years. I know better than Penn and Teller.

I'm glad you agree with me though; being paid something is much better than being paid nothing. Hence why the minimum wage is such a silly concept. Being paid less than minimum wage might suck, but it is better than being paid absolutely nothing.

That makes no sense to me. Being paid something is better than nothing. Being paid a living wage is better than being paid too little to live on. I know we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue, but I believe that a company which can afford to pay its workers a living wage should do so. A company which earns $16 billion in profits can afford to pay workers more than just above minimum wage. That, of course, does not factor how much tax money goes to make up for what Wal-Mart won't pay, so that employees can afford to live. I pay Wal-Mart workers even though I do not shop there, because their employer refuses to. I do not like this, but I like much less the idea that Wal-Mart should be allowed to pay them a fraction of this, because that is a company which would pay next to nothing if they could get away with it. And, people would still work for them, especially if employment was necessary to receive benefits. It would mean that either hard working people would be living in disgusting poverty, or the majority of a hard working person's income would come from government assistance.

I believe in a minimum wage which is enough for a person to live a decent life. Will that drive some people out of business? Sure it will. But, there will always be entrepreneurs. There will be those who will accept paying real wages to their employers even if they don't earn as much profit. Stripping robber barons of absolute power over employees did not destroy the economy, neither will this. After all, you will have a burgeoning working class which has significant purchasing power. I prefer this to the unregulated free-market, which seems, to me, a certain disaster.

[Tiberius]

I agree that being paid a living wage is better than being paid too little to live on, but some jobs are simply not worth what the government sets minimum wage at. Besides, it is not the large companies that lose out because of the minimum wage; as you pointed out, they can afford it. The people who lose out are small businesses, who do not have the massive amounts of revenue that large companies have.

If Wal-Mart could start paying employees less, it would only cause itself to lose money in the long run, as employees leave for better jobs at Wal-Mart's competitors. Wal-Mart has an invested interest in paying its employees properly. You even state that they pay them above minimum wage...that doesn't seem like a company who are actively trying to pay employees the absolute minimum.

[Angrboda]

I would consider myself a pragmatist. I have voted both conservative and social democrat and usualy vote for the one who wins the argument.

I disregard extremists from all ideological background and believe that for being capable of participating in a democracy a party must be capable to compromise and understand it`s opponents world view.

And worst of all to me are naiv foolish wkos, who no matter how bad the results of their policies are desperatly try to polish shit.

This probably explains why you lost the war.

[Anymouse]

---

My political views tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum, despite being a city councilman and open atheist in the most conservative part of the most religious state outside the Bible Belt (Nebraska).

Moreover, I was appointed to the job, nominated by the Chairman of my village's trustees (approximately equivalent to a mayor), who openly states he hates liberals, distrusts atheists, and found me the "least divisive" of those who stood forth for the job. (That makes me wonder who the other people were.) We'll have to see if that stands up in the next election (2014-I am planning to run for the election.)

Such phrases as "fiscally-conservative" are in fact meaningless, as there is no definition for that, and no one could define it. (How does one determine conservative spending on education, for example, when education is an investment? Or roads, or the military?) I have found those are usually buzzwords for "cut social programmes."

---

Ur a pinko commie.

That's what much of my town thinks, but they can't square that with my being a disabled veteran.

[fr0d0]

I'm not against the idea of unions in general, but in my country, they have far too much power.

Past tense. Unions in the UK are powerless now. The balance of power has shifted. Now employers have too much power. Contracts mean nothing to them. They break them without fear of consequence.

[Ryantology]

I agree that being paid a living wage is better than being paid too little to live on, but some jobs are simply not worth what the government sets minimum wage at. Besides, it is not the large companies that lose out because of the minimum wage; as you pointed out, they can afford it. The people who lose out are small businesses, who do not have the massive amounts of revenue that large companies have.

So, what then? Do we just let people starve so that business owners can keep afloat?

If Wal-Mart could start paying employees less, it would only cause itself to lose money in the long run, as employees leave for better jobs at Wal-Mart's competitors. Wal-Mart has an invested interest in paying its employees properly. You even state that they pay them above minimum wage...that doesn't seem like a company who are actively trying to pay employees the absolute minimum.

Many companies pay slightly above minimum because it looks good that you are not paying absolute minimum.

The problem is, it would not cause employees to leave for competitors, because their competitors (such as Target, for whom I've also worked) attempt to low-ball each other. If Wal-Mart suddenly started paying employees $1.50 an hour, Target would go "well, no reason to pay ours $7.75" and then Target employees might start making $1.65. Others would follow suit.

Employers like that can exploit desperation. Give them free reign to do so and we'll be a nation of sweatshop workers.

[Tiberius]

I'm not against the idea of unions in general, but in my country, they have far too much power.

Past tense. Unions in the UK are powerless now. The balance of power has shifted. Now employers have too much power. Contracts mean nothing to them. They break them without fear of consequence.

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.

So, what then? Do we just let people starve so that business owners can keep afloat?

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.

Many companies pay slightly above minimum because it looks good that you are not paying absolute minimum.

The problem is, it would not cause employees to leave for competitors, because their competitors (such as Target, for whom I've also worked) attempt to low-ball each other. If Wal-Mart suddenly started paying employees $1.50 an hour, Target would go "well, no reason to pay ours $7.75" and then Target employees might start making $1.65. Others would follow suit.

Employers like that can exploit desperation. Give them free reign to do so and we'll be a nation of sweatshop workers.

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. 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. 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.

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.

FYI, there is a good article here on Wage Laws: http://mises.org/daily/6364/Waging-War-on-Work

[fr0d0]

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.