The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

#676
#676
hog88 said:
I agree that this is happening (the bold) but it's a two way street. I see more and more employees who could give two ****s about the company and actively avoid doing anything above what they are required to do.

A few years ago I had to suspend bonuses for a couple quarters, lost some accounts and it was either that or lay people off. I even differed my own pay for a couple months. Hardly a damn one was appreciative for not being laid off or having insurance or other benefits cut they just constantly *****ed and griped about the bonuses. If that situation ever comes up again, there will be people going out the door and I'll keep mine.
Click to expand...

I believe that small companies are more likely to value the contributions of their employees. It's partly a function of size. You work side by side with them and you know them. It's when the companies get large enough to consider the employees a fungible resource that we seem to run into problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#677
#677
luthervol said:
What qualifiers? I don't understand the question. Is he still talking about the chicken strip analogy?

It's an analogy, I can put hundreds of different qualifiers in. Is there a specific question? You sure as he11 seem to think so.

Are you obsessive compulsive?
Click to expand...

Qualifers to this post:

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...

PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

The discussion started of by asking if there was a working definition of "greed" vs "self-interest". If not, it seems the entire discussion is rather vapid.

You responded by giving the chicken strip analogy as a definition or delineation between "greed" and "self-interest". I responded by applying that delineation to yourself with respect to income/wealth distribution across the globe. It seemingly implied that you would be guilty of being greedy.

You responded with the post above saying that everyone doesn't have an equal claim in global income/wealth distribution. Thus, I inquired as to what exactly are these qualifications.

The problem is that your analogy has built-in presuppositions which you don't seemingly hold when applied to other areas. Mainly, that everyone is equal. Thus, all have an equal claim to the chicken strips regardless of line position. However, as I alluded to in my post, if we switch out certain parts of your analogy, such as having malnourished Ethiopians behind you in line, does that change things?
 
#680
#680
luthervol said:
I don't think any of those things, with the possible exception of your job, were created by a billionaire. They became billionaires after the fact. I cant't think of many major inventions by billionaires (or even millionaires). They were often created in a garage or a basement by a working class stiff. We would have all of those things regardless of rather or not the inventor got 5 million, 50 million, 5 billion, or 50 billion dollars.
Click to expand...

North Korea is calling...... you must go
 
#681
#681
PKT_VOL said:
Qualifers to this post:





The discussion started of by asking if there was a working definition of "greed" vs "self-interest". If not, it seems the entire discussion is rather vapid.

You responded by giving the chicken strip analogy as a definition or delineation between "greed" and "self-interest". I responded by applying that delineation to yourself with respect to income/wealth distribution across the globe. It seemingly implied that you would be guilty of being greedy.

You responded with the post above saying that everyone doesn't have an equal claim in global income/wealth distribution. Thus, I inquired as to what exactly are these qualifications.

The problem is that your analogy has built-in presuppositions which you don't seemingly hold when applied to other areas. Mainly, that everyone is equal. Thus, all have an equal claim to the chicken strips regardless of line position. However, as I alluded to in my post, if we switch out certain parts of your analogy, such as having malnourished Ethiopians behind you in line, does that change things?
Click to expand...

Obviously knowledge of the plight of the people behind you in line would impact the moral implications of your decision. If they were starving Ethiopians, I wouldn't take any. If it were a group of four jerks that took my parking spot and then were rude to the other guests and made cat calls during the wedding, I would take all 8.

Again, my analogy was based on knowing nothing about the people behind you in line. That gets to more of a persons true nature and their feelings toward the rest of humanity when compared to themselves.
 
#682
#682
luthervol said:
Obviously knowledge of the plight of the people behind you in line would impact the moral implications of your decision. If they were starving Ethiopians, I wouldn't take any. If it were a group of four jerks that took my parking spot and then were rude to the other guests and made cat calls during the wedding, I would take all 8.

Again, my analogy was based on knowing nothing about the people behind you in line. That gets to more of a persons true nature and their feelings toward the rest of humanity when compared to themselves.
Click to expand...

Ok. So to determine greed, one must have information on others, or, if not, must treat them as equal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#683
#683
Should the fat people in line get more chicken since they eat more, or should the skinny ones get more , so everybody can work towards being the same size?
 
#684
#684
1972 Grad said:
Should the fat people in line get more chicken since they eat more, or should the skinny ones get more , so everybody can work towards being the same size?
Click to expand...

That's one of the many conundrums. But in my analogy, you know nothing about the four....not even if they're fatties or bean poles.
 
#685
#685
PKT_VOL said:
Ok. So to determine greed, one must have information on others, or, if not, must treat them as equal?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this is headed. Without any knowledge, I would say treating them as equal would be best. With knowledge, adjustments would be made based upon your wisdom and morality.
 
#688
#688
luthervol said:
I'm not sure where this is headed. Without any knowledge, I would say treating them as equal would be best. With knowledge, adjustments would be made based upon your wisdom and morality.
Click to expand...

Ok. How would you apply this to this distribution of world income/wealth?
 
#689
#689
PKT_VOL said:
Ok. How would you apply this to this distribution of world income/wealth?
Click to expand...

That's a question for people far more knowledgeable than I am. On a national level, I filter everything through how it effects wealth distribution. On a global level, I guess I would do the same. I consider "the greater good" to be the overriding consideration in most instances. That's not to say that wealth should be distributed equally, only that we should strive to move toward a more equal distribution instead of trying to enrich ourselves at the expense of others.

I know that's not much of an answer.
 
#691
#691
luthervol said:
That's a question for people far more knowledgeable than I am. On a national level, I filter everything through how it effects wealth distribution. On a global level, I guess I would do the same. I consider "the greater good" to be the overriding consideration in most instances. That's not to say that wealth should be distributed equally, only that we should strive to move toward a more equal distribution

I know that's not much of an answer.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that it isn't particularly helpful.

Bear in mind that you continually enrich yourself (and your family) everyday despite being admittedly in the top 2%. If one was to look at that from the bottom 10%, such would probably appear to greedy. Why continue to enrich yourself when you are already in the top 2%? This would seemingly hold if viewed from an alien vistor perspective or if one was to invoke Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

Furthermore, I you don't have knowledge of the lower 98%; let alone knowledge which you would use to exclude their potential claims.

Yet, having sketched all that, I doubt you would consider yourself greedy (regardless of what the bottom 10% might, the alien, or someone from behind Rawls' Veil of Ignorance feel). I doubt others in this thread would view you as greedy, although some might find you a bit hypocritical.

Basically, your definition just isn't tenable although the effort was admirable.

luthervol said:
...instead of trying to enrich ourselves at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Enrichment at the expense of others seems to be an interesting concept. However, this involves harm of another instead of mere knowledge of another and would be more akin to stealing. How would harm be judged? Does it have to be direct? If not, how does one assess such without being speculative?
 
#692
#692
PKT_VOL said:
I'd agree that it isn't particularly helpful.

Bear in mind that you continually enrich yourself (and your family) everyday despite being admittedly in the top 2%. If one was to look at that from the bottom 10%, such would probably appear to greedy. Why continue to enrich yourself when you are already in the top 2%? This would seemingly hold if viewed from an alien vistor perspective or if one was to invoke Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

Furthermore, I you don't have knowledge of the lower 98%; let alone knowledge which you would use to exclude their potential claims.

Yet, having sketched all that, I doubt you would consider yourself greedy (regardless of what the bottom 10% might, the alien, or someone from behind Rawls' Veil of Ignorance feel). I doubt others in this thread would view you as greedy, although some might find you a bit hypocritical.

Basically, your definition just isn't tenable although the effort was admirable.



Enrichment at the expense of others seems to be an interesting concept. However, this involves harm of another instead of mere knowledge of another and would be more akin to stealing. How would harm be judged? Does it have to be direct? If not, how does one assess such without being speculative?
Click to expand...
Obviously all of this is subjective. Love and hate, good and evil, right and wrong. There will never be universally agreed upon definitions or measures.
I am greedy by some measures; more greedy than some less greedy than others.

Again, that's why I used my original definition/analogy; it's simple with limited variables.

All I have done to reach the top 2% is generally live the life I was expected to live. I think 90% of the world's population does the same.

My fundamental belief is that the distribution of wealth in our country and in the world is way out of balance and is getting worse. My wish is for the trend to reverse and move in the other direction. I'll support laws, policies, people, and governments that have that same goal.
 
#693
#693
luthervol said:
Obviously all of this is subjective. Love and hate, good and evil, right and wrong. There will never be universally agreed upon definitions or measures.
I am greedy by some measures; more greedy than some less greedy than others.

Again, that's why I used my original definition/analogy; it's simple with limited variables.
Click to expand...

That's less of a concern than just having a working definition for this thread. Without it, we are meaninglessly talking past one another.

luthervol said:
All I have done to reach the top 2% is generally live the life I was expected to live. I think 90% of the world's population does the same.
Click to expand...

Those in the top 1% could say the same. They came from prominent families, were privately educated, and were mentored by other successful people to live the life they were expected.

luthervol said:
My fundamental belief is that the distribution of wealth in our country and in the world is way out of balance and is getting worse. My wish is for the trend to reverse and move in the other direction. I'll support laws, policies, people, and governments that have that same goal.
Click to expand...

You are free to give away your top 2% of wealth.
 
#694
#694
PKT_VOL said:
That's less of a concern than just having a working definition for this thread. Without it, we are meaninglessly talking past one another.


Those in the top 1% could say the same. They came from prominent families, were privately educated, and were mentored by other successful people to live the life they were expected.


You are free to give away your top 2% of wealth.
Click to expand...
Feel free to offer your working definition. (you were all along)

The top 1% is part of humanity; that's what humans do.

Of course I am. I'm also free to support the people, policies, laws, and governments that will move in the direction I think best.
 
Last edited:
#695
#695
luthervol said:
Feel free to offer your working definition. (you were all along)

The top 1% is part of humanity; that's what humans do.

Of course I am. I'm also free to support the people, policies, laws, and governments that will move in the direction I think best.
Click to expand...

There are over 40 million people over the last 100 years that were killed in the name of socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#696
#696
Here's an example of the "greater good":

In the hospital, there are 3 folks who going to die unless they receive a liver, heart, and kidney transplant respectively. Mr. O negative walks in with a minor flesh wound. The Dr. euthanizes Mr. O negative and divides the organs among our transplant patients. Three lives are saved at the expense of one and the "greater good" is served.
 
#697
#697
Burger said:
There are over 40 million people over the last 100 years that were killed in the name of socialism.
Click to expand...

I've heard 40 to 60 million from the Soviet Union alone and up to 80 million in China. Also fascism is a flavor of socialism and I've heard up to 12 million from the Nazis. This doesn't count Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia, and many countries in Africa.
 
#698
#698
midnight orange said:
Here's an example of the "greater good":

In the hospital, there are 3 folks who going to die unless they receive a liver, heart, and kidney transplant respectively. Mr. O negative walks in with a minor flesh wound. The Dr. euthanizes Mr. O negative and divides the organs among our transplant patients. Three lives are saved at the expense of one and the "greater good" is served.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid example that no one would support. Sort of like this.....Joe had a 5 gallon jug of water. He ran across a group of people dying from dehydration. A third party offered him $100 for the water so they could fill some water balloons to throw at each other. Joe sold it and let the dehydrated group die. We can come up with asinine examples all night long.
 
#699
#699
midnight orange said:
I've heard 40 to 60 million from the Soviet Union alone and up to 80 million in China. Also fascism is a flavor of socialism and I've heard up to 12 million from the Nazis. This doesn't count Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia, and many countries in Africa.
Click to expand...

We're looking at 100 million then. That would be more than any disease or religion in the same period.
 
#700
#700
Burger said:
We're looking at 100 million then. That would be more than any disease or religion in the same period.
Click to expand...

That's like saying capitalism caused the loss of 2% of the US population in the Civil War. More American deaths than WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War combined. That would equate to about 120,000,000 world wide today.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top