The Conservative Voice

[Violet]

Quick poll, how many people here have ever said they wanted no government? My guess is zero.

The forum has never been visited by an anarchist? 0.o

Stop thinking mathematical equality and start thinking social equality. It is impossible by definition to have everyone exactly the same. Some people have brown hair, others have blond. Some people have rich parents, others have poor.

Even in mass production is every item produced different... perfect clones remain different in location.

We aren't talking about equality meaning person A being identical to person B, we are talking about equality meaning that no matter who you are, how much you earn, or what your hair colour is, you are treated the same by the government and by society in general.

The rich people will always be treated differently by a society than the poorer members of that society... the heros, the beloved, and the famed always differently from those who are not valued so much as they. It's only fair to respect what another has... if one considers all equal: they have done a disservice to the value of all. Suddenly are the great of as much worth as the talentless... the much appreciated given the same rights and duties as the common servant... the famous forgotten within a system that does not reward fame.

I am rather strongly against considering equality where there is none: we are not born equal, and we do not develop equally, and our lives' worth is not equal.

You can trust companies to do one thing, and that is to listen to their consumers. Why? Because in a world with no government restrictions on business, the consumers have all the power. They set the prices; they tell the company what to pay their employees; they are in control.

They are not in control, for in an unrestricted business model: There is no reason other than idealism that companies would not ally together insomuch as all agreeing to raise prices to a certain level. Customers won't buy water at the demanded price? Then customers will not drink. Government has a vested interest in human meat to keep its machine running... companies have only an interest in squeezing money earned by others into its own coffers.

You say that consumers set the prices and have control over an unrestricted business system, but Adrian: that is crap. Those who are strong would have no competition to prey upon the weak individual consumers... and where normally they would have to deal with a stronger entity (government) when doing things that the stronger entity does not like: they would be free to perform in all capacities.

There would be no point or benefit in "buying" politicians when the politicians have no control over the economy in the first place. If you want to end corruption; remove the corruptible from any proper position of power. It's that simple.

Politicians do have some control over the economy as it is, this little alaskan woman is fully aware. And even if it did not have an impact upon the economy: companies are still controlled by people with ideals and desires... there will always be a point to buying politicians when it will further one's goals.

How do you propose you remove the corruptible from a position of power when almost all of us are corruptible... or did you even hear about the likes of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Can you even tell the difference between the extremely rare individuals that cannot be corrupted and those that can?

Infact... how is non-corruptibility even a good thing? Seems to me that the ones that are 'corruptible' are also the ones that are less idealistic and more competent for the job of obtaining more power for the nation/company... effectively the best people for the job: why would you want anything else unless you were an idealist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Quick poll, how many people here have ever said they wanted no government? My guess is zero.

My understanding of the context of this discussion is no government interferance in the economy. In other words, an unrestricted free market economy that is supposed to regulate itself because humans are such good people to one another and they totally wouldn't take advantage of money and power.
My video examplifies the problem I'm talking about perfectly and it's a problem that will never happen again after the heathcare law that was passed recently because they will no longer be able to do the kind of thing they did to Chris in that video and this law was passed entirely because of situations like that and outright demand from those affected and those sympathetic to their plight.

*Note - not saying they won't find other ways to screw people somehow, but it's a step in the right direction.

Now, I ask you, Adrian, theVoid, or anyone else - just what is an unregulated free market going to be able to do to prevent this man from dying. What are his options?
Keeping in mind that Humana is his only choice for a health insurance provider because, like most US states, there is only one health insurance provider in an entire state with virtually no competition.
(One of the healthcare law mandates is that individuals will have the option of getting out-of-state insurance options so many of these companies will have to face actual competition - barring collaboration between competing companies to set their own prices and otherwise rig the capitalism game to their favor.)

No minimum wage may eliminate unemployment but put far more people into poverty unless the cost of living ALSO goes down, which can only go down if the quality of living also goes down - such as by eliminating government regulations over health, building safety, employee safety, and so on. Those things cost money and so do places to live, food, and electricity and unless the former is competative with the latter, then all we're doing is degrading a first world country into a third world country with substandard living conditions, starvation, poverty, and disease coupled with an ENORMOUS gulf between the richest and poorest where the richest make as much in a few seconds as the poorest can make in years.
The end result is not a healthy nation or even a sanitary living condition for the bulk of the population.

[Autumnlicious]

I think that anyone who argues against minimum wage should be introduced to the quality of life of the working man in countries with ridiculous to nil minimum wage (China, India, etc)... :S

[theVOID]

What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

Raising the minimum wage has the latter effect.

I'm not against a minimum wage, but it's a clear Dilemma.

What does maintain a balance and make higher base wages attractive for companies is if business taxes are lowered proportional to rises in a baseline wages (or proportional increase in wages across the board), the only person who has less in this situation ins the Govt - Not good for you welfare fiends but in more centre-right systems it's effective - The business doesn't have to cut costs (which ultimately means fire lots of people) in order to maintain their bottom line.

[Minimalist]

More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

Fuck....using that logic we could re-institute slavery and you wouldn't have to pay anybody at all. The rich cocksuckers would probably sign on to that in a heartbeat.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

I think both are terrible options and neither solves the underlying problem.

What does maintain a balance and make higher base wages attractive for companies is if business taxes are lowered proportional to rises in a baseline wages (or proportional increase in wages across the board), the only person who has less in this situation ins the Govt - Not good for you welfare fiends but in more centre-right systems it's effective - The business doesn't have to cut costs (which ultimately means fire lots of people) in order to maintain their bottom line.

If this were the case, we (US citizens) should have been swimming in jobs during the bush years thanks to a host of deregulations and tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Both of those things, according to the conservative philosophy, should have freed up money for them to do exactly this.
The result was that the economy jumped off a cliff and unemployment jumped into a rocket and shot off into space over that decade and we're still looking at the results of that and a number of other issues.

Clearly, I have every reason to believe that cutting taxes even more than Obama's recent 'tax compromise' (which extended and included more tax cuts) and Obama's stimulus (which included tax cuts) is ultimately going to produce either no results or statistically insignificant results.

[theVOID]

More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

Fuck....using that logic we could re-institute slavery and you wouldn't have to pay anybody at all. The rich cocksuckers would probably sign on to that in a heartbeat.

You can't get from paid wages to slavery full stop, they're mutually exclusive.

Rich people are automatically pro-slavery? Bullshit min. Bill gates and warren buffet seems so fucking likely to take slaves.

Any other non-sequiturs you'd like to throw out before I make my point?

Like I said, I'm for a minimum wage, but there is the fact that increasing wages across the board costs jobs. There is always an opportunity cost involved every time you switch the balance in a system, the key is finding an effective and sustainable balance in a system that is prone to taking adjustments poorly.

And before you start saying these corporations could afford it from their profits, what about the millions of small businesses that will have no such luck adjusting? They are the ones who will have to find equilibrium through some other cost cuts. Unless you want different wage laws depending on how much the business earns in profit? Good luck finding an effective implementation for such a thing.

---

What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

I think both are terrible options and neither solves the underlying problem.

The underline problem can't be solved. Finite resources and an expanding population is the underline problem.

What would be your suggestion to raising minimum wages without losing jobs and/or having a negative impact on small business owners?

What does maintain a balance and make higher base wages attractive for companies is if business taxes are lowered proportional to rises in a baseline wages (or proportional increase in wages across the board), the only person who has less in this situation ins the Govt - Not good for you welfare fiends but in more centre-right systems it's effective - The business doesn't have to cut costs (which ultimately means fire lots of people) in order to maintain their bottom line.

If this were the case, we (US citizens) should have been swimming in jobs during the bush years thanks to a host of deregulations and tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Both of those things, according to the conservative philosophy, should have freed up money for them to do exactly this.
The result was that the economy jumped off a cliff and unemployment jumped into a rocket and shot off into space over that decade and we're still looking at the results of that and a number of other issues.

I am not a conservative. Pointing out their problems to me is like pointing out the problems with creationism and thinking you are scoring points.

Anyway, They did not make wage increases mandatory nor was the tax cuts on business, it was on the income of the persons - A business tax cut makes sure the adjustment goes through the calculus, taxing less after the fact is nowhere near as effective, so that is simply a false analogy.

Also, cutting taxes does not necessarily lead to more jobs, supply and demand is the driving factor behind that and cutting taxes for the top 2% with the aim of doing so is plainly nonsensical.

The problems in the banking system was part of the same flawed currency system that has seen it collapse multiple times since it's institution pre 1920s and did not arise from the bush tax-cuts, it may have helped, but it was not in any way the driving factor behind the economic collapse. The problem there was the net worth of the nation was (and still is) an imaginary number.

Clearly, I have every reason to believe that cutting taxes even more than Obama's recent 'tax compromise' (which extended and included more tax cuts) and Obama's stimulus (which included tax cuts) is ultimately going to produce either no results or statistically insignificant results.

Cutting taxes for the population must be done in proportion to a retraction in social services. Doing it for any other reason makes absolutely no sense, you get yourself into the red.

If he was going to increase taxes and increase social services it would make sense. Doing both a tax-cut and increasing social services simultaneously could have extremely negative consequences. Any time the balance is not maintained the peaks between high and low rise as equilibrium diminishes.

[Violet]

What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

Why not have everyone earn something and then less people employed earning more than that base amount?

You can't get from paid wages to slavery full stop, they're mutually exclusive.

All that slavery posits is that a person is owned by another person... there's plenty of room for a slave of a generous owner to make money.

Rich people are automatically pro-slavery? Bullshit min. Bill gates and warren buffet seems so fucking likely to take slaves.

Automatically and all of them? No... but please note the bolded word in here "The rich cocksuckers would probably sign on to that in a heartbeat."

Please, try not to argue with your own ghosts

Like I said, I'm for a minimum wage, but there is the fact that increasing wages across the board costs jobs. There is always an opportunity cost involved every time you switch the balance in a system, the key is finding an effective and sustainable balance in a system that is prone to taking adjustments poorly.

Increasing wages for the lower end of the spectrum would only reduce the gap between the rich and poor... is it too much to ask that the well off have the responsibility of providing enough to the unfortunates that such can eat, drink, and be warm? It isn't as if the rich are losing anything to feed the dogs table scraps.

And before you start saying these corporations could afford it from their profits, what about the millions of small businesses that will have no such luck adjusting? They are the ones who will have to find equilibrium through some other cost cuts. Unless you want different wage laws depending on how much the business earns in profit? Good luck finding an effective implementation for such a thing.

Why would one take from "small businesses" at all? That sounds rather unfair when one considers how much they make. What remains is the fact that there are people making millions and billions of monetary units a year that are growing rich beyond any real use of their money while poorer people are still starving, freezing, and being denied medical attention when they need it.

Ideological form of a possible system: It's not at all difficult to find an effective implementation of such a system... the question is only which of the many viable options one will decide to go with I think a percent income tax increasing as people become richer (and nonexistent at the low end) would be one of the most effective implementations: as it would avoid sucking from people that are barely getting by and make full use of mountains of money that are just sitting around (iow: being useless). Such a system is also adaptable... if one finds that the poor are overcompensated and the rich being drained faster than they can make: one simply lowers the percentage transfered at different levels of income Conversely... should it be judged that the poor require more: the percentage at levels deemed appropriate simply increases.

There may well be a better implementation still... but it remains that there exist different (yet effective for the wound being treated) executions of welfare for the poor.

The underline problem can't be solved. Finite resources and an expanding population is the underline problem.

So control the birth rate down to levels sustainable by the finite resources, increasing the finite resources available while doing so. If that was the underlying problem, then the underlying problem is solved

[Autumnlicious]

Ah, I see that a few posts ago, the slide into a false choice happened.

Excellent.

[Anomalocaris]

You can't get from paid wages to slavery full stop, they're mutually exclusive.

False. Examples of systems of slavery in which slaves are customarily remunerated are numerous, as are slaves who, while remaining slaves, grew filthy rich and vastly influential. The boundary between slavery and free man shifts a lot according to the instance, although slavery as found in the Christian world from 16th - 19th century were some of the most brutal ever instituted anywhere.