The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

#601
#601
LouderVol said:
Haven't read, but nope. Can't minimize people. If they can do the job they deserve fair pay.
Click to expand...

But dude! Many CAN'T do the job. Say, IDD folk working in a greenhouse, taking 12 new plants out of 2" x12 starter platts and sticking them in 8" hanging pots to grow for sale. An able unchallenged worker can do many times more a day as the IDD folk. Yes, IDD can show up for a shift, but some for only 4 hrs. Some all day. But if the nursery had to pay minimum wage, there would be no workshop jobs at all for so many people nationwide. And those jobs may be the only jobs they will ever have. Ask someone who works in special ed to get them jobs how hard it is to get those on the lower end of the IDD spectrum any kind of job. Whether an IDD workshop/ rehabilitation center or as a "busboy" at a fast food joint, then to keep it for more than a few weeks. The cost of employing too many IDD folk is greater than what their value to their "employer".
 
#602
#602
luthervol said:
You and the 4 people behind you in line all have equal claim to the remaining 10 chicken strips with the sole exception being your place in line. No one person legitimately deserves them more than another, no one has done anything to deserve the chicken strips other than just show up. You can choose to take as many as you wish. Do you take more than two? You can justify it by your place in line; after all, they could have gotten in line sooner if they were really that hungry. Or do you quickly do the math and just take two, thinking that's the decent thing to do?
Click to expand...

So, everyone doesn't have equal claim to economic transactions? That would be the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#603
#603
PKT_VOL said:
So, everyone doesn't have equal claim to economic transactions? That would be the difference?
Click to expand...

Everyone does not have an equal claim to equal amounts. That is the difference. But.........many people have more of a claim for a more equal amount than many others believe. That's why I used that definition. Does the fact that you have a better place in line and have the ability and right to take more, allow you to justify taking more than two? If so, that's my definition of greed. If you take two, that's my definition of self interest.
 
#605
#605
luthervol said:
Everyone does not have an equal claim to equal amounts. That is the difference. But.........many people have more of a claim for a more equal amount than many others believe. That's why I used that definition. Does the fact that you have a better place in line and have the ability and right to take more, allow you to justify taking more than two? If so, that's my definition of greed. If you take two, that's my definition of self interest.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
#607
#607
luthervol said:
Not surprised. I know the type. I would never take more than two. In fact, I would have reprimanded any of my children had they taken more than two. Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
Dog eat dog world. No such thing as equal outcomes...that's just setting people up for failure.
 
#608
#608
FLVOL_79 said:
Dog eat dog world. No such thing as equal outcomes...that's just setting people up for failure.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty sad outlook on life 79....and my kids and I are all doing quite well.
 
Last edited:
#611
#611
luthervol said:
Sad outlook on life. My kids and I are all doing quite well.
Click to expand...

Its not sad, its reality. Once you can accept reality you can lead a better life instead of living in a fantasy world that involves crying about people who make more money than you.

And thats good your family does well. I'm not saying how you raised them was wrong or anything. I am just stating my outlook as an adult.
 
#612
#612
FLVOL_79 said:
Its not sad, its reality. Once you can accept reality you can lead a better life instead of living in a fantasy world that involves crying about people who make more money than you.

And thats good your family does well. I'm not saying how you raised them was wrong or anything. I am just stating my outlook as an adult.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not saying I raised my family wrong. We're all happy in our warped version of reality.
 
#613
#613
luthervol said:
Everyone does not have an equal claim to equal amounts. That is the difference. But.........many people have more of a claim for a more equal amount than many others believe. That's why I used that definition. Does the fact that you have a better place in line and have the ability and right to take more, allow you to justify taking more than two? If so, that's my definition of greed. If you take two, that's my definition of self interest.
Click to expand...

That's greedy but what is your remedy? Do you want to legislate good behavior?
 
#614
#614
luthervol said:
You and the 4 people behind you in line all have equal claim to the remaining 10 chicken strips with the sole exception being your place in line. No one person legitimately deserves them more than another, no one has done anything to deserve the chicken strips other than just show up. You can choose to take as many as you wish. Do you take more than two? You can justify it by your place in line; after all, they could have gotten in line sooner if they were really that hungry. Or do you quickly do the math and just take two, thinking that's the decent thing to do?
Click to expand...

How big is each chicken strip? And is there any honey mustard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#615
#615
luthervol said:
Everyone does not have an equal claim to equal amounts. That is the difference. But.........many people have more of a claim for a more equal amount than many others believe. That's why I used that definition. Does the fact that you have a better place in line and have the ability and right to take more, allow you to justify taking more than two? If so, that's my definition of greed. If you take two, that's my definition of self interest.
Click to expand...

You would have to explain the qualifiers. Keep in mind, we can switch out different parts of your analogy which would probably lead to different conclusions.
 
#617
#617
midnight orange said:
That's greedy but what is your remedy? Do you want to legislate good behavior?
Click to expand...

There is no complete remedy and it is impossible to legislate good behavior. I think a good starting point would be for us, as a society, to do a better job of teaching and leading by example. The whole it's a dog eat dog world, get what you can while you can, look out for number one mentality has its place but it has to be balanced.
 
#618
#618
Persian Vol said:
Distribution of wealth is brought under the idealistic premise that there is enough money within our economy that poverty can potentially be eradicated if we narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Many skeptics to this idealistic solution to income inequality state that it is morally wrong for individuals who do not work to take another individuals money who has worked for it. I disagree with this.

First off, all impovershed worker are theoretically working in this scenario. Income wouldn't be supplied to individuals who do not have a job.

Second off, not all wealthy people are inherently working harder than all poor people. An individual who makes 300x as much as a poor individual is clearly not working 300x as hard. I constantly see the argument that rich people work harder for the money, and that is why they deserve the money.

Yet, many proponents to that argument also believe that our free market economy does not equate wealth of a job to "hard work", but that it is simply dependent on supply and demand. If we acknowledge that our job market is based off supply and demand (which it is), it does not make sense for us to use this "morally" subjective argument that low income workers deserve their wealth because they do not work as hard.
Click to expand...
what a crock of crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#623
#623
luthervol said:
One could always turn and ask, but that would require intelligent discussion which may be asking a little to much.
Click to expand...

Your chicken strip philosophy works at a buffet line, but the real world I'm afraid is more complicated.

Let's say I make several million dollars per year. Assume that I have done this honestly and have not broken any laws.

Does the act of me taking more chicken strips than most people (i.e., making millions) come at the direct expense of people behind me in the line? Should I be required to leave money on the table, or have an extremely high rate of taxation on my income or wealth, because I make more money than most people? Are there a limited amount of chicken strips to go around?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#624
#624
05_never_again said:
Your chicken strip philosophy works at a buffet line, but the real world I'm afraid is more complicated.

Let's say I make several million dollars per year. Assume that I have done this honestly and have not broken any laws.

Does the act of me taking more chicken strips than most people (i.e., making millions) come at the direct expense of people behind me in the line? Should I be required to leave money on the table, or have an extremely high rate of taxation on my income or wealth, because I make more money than most people? Are there a limited amount of chicken strips to go around?
Click to expand...

It obviously gets complicated and the answers to all of your questions would be sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends, etc.... There are reasons why we have things like the anti-trust act from 130 years ago and a progressive income tax.

Bottom line for me is this:
Wealth distribution in the US is obscene and getting exponentially worse. (look at any data) It cannot continue on the current trend. I look at everything through the filter of "what is the end effect on wealth distribution." I know it's an unpopular view on this board, but it's what makes sense to me and what seems best for the future.
 
#625
#625
luthervol said:
It obviously gets complicated and the answers to all of your questions would be sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends, etc.... There are reasons why we have things like the anti-trust act from 130 years ago and a progressive income tax.

Bottom line for me is this:
Wealth distribution in the US is obscene and getting exponentially worse. (look at any data) It cannot continue on the current trend. I look at everything through the filter of "what is the end effect on wealth distribution." I know it's an unpopular view on this board, but it's what makes sense to me and what seems best for the future.
Click to expand...

How about quality of life for those that aren't wealthy? The so-called poor in this country have big screen tv's, cell phones, an automobile, computer, etc, and are likely obese. Compare that to a poor person in India or a well off American 25 years ago. What can't continue on the current trend is federal govt spending. When the bond holders say "no more" to US treasuries, the 20 trillion dollar house of cards will fall.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top