Forum Post: You are not worth a salary of 100K a year just because you are breathing!
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 9:27 a.m. EST by Daennera
(765)
from Griffith, IN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've seen a lot of talk on here about how we should have these outrageous minimum salaries of 40K, 60K, 100K, etc. Because for some reason minimum wage just isn't enough. Never mind the fact that to a whole lot of min wage workers, their pay could be seen as more of a gift than a wage. A gift simply because they are not worth that much, nor can they provide value in excess of their pay. So if you think you are really truly worth 100K a year, consider that the fact that you aren't being paid that is because you cannot product that kind of value for your employer. People are paid based on what they can produce. You have to figure that in order for your employer to be able to afford your salary, other government mandated expenditures for having you as an employee, pay for overhead, make a profit, and grow; you had better be producing at minimum THREE times as much as your base salary. Sometimes more depending on your field. Does anyone here really think a cashier at Walmart is producing three times min wage in value for Walmart? Seeing as how we can get a simple machine to nearly the same job, I'm going to have to say no. Walmart cashiers (and others along those lines) should be grateful that Walmart pays them at all.
You have not seen anyone here propose a minimum salary of 100K, you lying troll.
Yeah I have. I do not need to lie to make that up. You really think people AREN'T stupid enough to come up with that. Come on now.
Let's see the links, you lying troll.
I love SisterRay! Keep typing gurl!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/wild-idea-what-about-a-system-that-offers-each-ind/
Please see "demandthegoodlifedotcom" and his posts. He says that we should be paying upwards of 100K a year.
There's no mention of a minimum salary there at all, you lying troll.
DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom is calling for socialism and an equal distribution of wealth, not a minimum salary, you lying troll.
Any more misleading links, you lying troll?
His comment:
"Since a "producer" is someone who works, I can assure you that most workers would rather work in a system that pays them $110k - $480k than a system where 90%+ make less than that amount and 50% make less than $33k."
I'm lying how now, fool?
You're lying because the call is for socialism, not a minimum salary, you lying troll.
DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (mistakenly) believes that an equal distribution of wealth would yield $110k-$480k per worker, not that workers are worth a minimum salary of that value, you lying troll.
You're lying in that you claim to have seen someone here propose a minimum salary of 100K, you lying troll. You have not. You are just a lying troll.
Socialism might as well be min salary. You don't have to work to get it and it's set as certain amount. Either absolutely or by algorithm.
You also have people saying that 30K a year is just to little to live on. Bullshit. If I can buy multiple houses on 38K a year, you can survive on 30K a year.
Socialism "might as well be min salary" just as capitalism might as well be communism, day might as well be night, and wrong might as well be right.
You're a lying troll and your false equivalences are just a testament to how much lying you're willing to put into your trolling, you lying troll.
Oh gee whiz lady get over yourself. If socialism guarantees a min std of living, that is the equivalent of guaranteeing a min salary. You could also call it min buying power I suppose, but economically it's all the same thing.
And no one is born deserving the minimum of anything!
Gee whiz, you lying troll. DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom doesn't demand a minimum standard of living, you lying troll. DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom demands an equal distribution of wealth, you lying troll. That's not equivalent to a minimum salary or minimum buying power or any other minimum, you lying troll. That's equivalent to an equal share of the wealth in the system, you lying troll. You're wrong and you've been called out on it, you lying troll. Now there's nothing for you to do but lie and troll, since you're just a lying troll.
'Equal share' does not = minimum.
"Equal" does not = minimum, and "share" does not = minimum, AND (but not thus) 'Equal share' does not = minimum.
At a minimum, grasp this, and be thankful you couldn't get student loans.
how old are you? you sound so immature and ignorant. just an FYI
A guaranteed equal share of wealth is a guaranteed minimum. How is it not?
And where's the link to the thread that said people can't survive on 30K per year?
There was a recent thread where we talked about people not being able to survive on minimum wage which is about half of 30K per year.
I said I thought living wage for NYC was around 11 bucks an hour which is STILL not 30K per year. It's 22,800 per year - which we said was "living wage"
Also, I'm gonna need you to explain this:
"Does anyone here really think a cashier at Walmart is producing three times min wage in value for Walmart?"
I think cashiers at Walmart are producing enough to keep their owners on the Forbes list of ten richest people in USA
I think cashiers at Walmart are producing enough to make their owners a 3.6 BILLION dollar profit last year!
Walmart - bad fucking example of your anti-minimum wage sob story. You should have asked if I thought a bodega owner could afford to pay someone more than 8 dollars an hour.
I have this question - if the Waltons are billionaires and their chain posted a 3.6 billion dollar profit last year, how can they NOT afford to be treating their workers better and paying them more?
How do they have the BALLS to try to milk overtime out of their workers without paying them for it when they post 3.6 billion dollars in profit.
Great post!!! If the Waltons paid a decent wage their employees would not have to depend on the government to get by.
That's right. The same conservatives who scream about food stamps, medicaid and the earned income credit fail to see that those programs are actually a wage subsidy for companies like Walmart, whose business model includes a large number of low paid wage workers.
Business have to make a profit you know. No one is going to run a business out of charity. I guess we should also figure in how much profit does it take to ensure the owner keeps the business open.
No one says they shouldn't make a profit. I certainly don't say that.
They need to be more equitable to their workers, though. 36 billion dollars in profit means they could spread the wealth around just a bit more - or how about just eliminating unfair labor practices and trying to skirt the labor laws?
Given the size of Walmart, I think 36bil is about right for a successful year.
And why should they spread the wealth around? It is their wealth after all. The company they own made that money. If you want to enforce labor laws, fine go ahead. But it is unethical to mandate stealing their money to give to others.
Stealing the labor of your employees is also unethical. And illegal.
Yet, that is the kind of behavior Walmart engages in.
"No one is going to run a business out of charity..."
some would, but not a soul-less, clue-less automatron like you... spending time defending greed... obviously not human
Yeah I've heard the response before. Laughable. Just laughable. People work for their own interests. Sometimes those interests are altruistic, but there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. People get something out of acting altruistic, or they wouldn't do it.
Even people who work for charities expect to be paid.
don't expect them to be able to find the right sentence in a page full of words... they can't even find a job
This SisterRay is particularly incorrigible. Socialists usually are, but her screen name makes me think "witch" whenever I see it.
Oh sure, we're the "incorrigible" side when we challenge your distortions of what is said here.
But when your "side" comes on here and makes rape jokes and creates usernames that are themselves gross, puerile insults - you have NOTHING to say.
I didn't make any rape jokes, nor would I. But those of us who are neither the 1% nor the 99% aren't cool with the idea of mandating pay, for anyone.
I couldn't respond to your last comment. On THIS forum all the rape jokes are coming from one side. Again, I would like to see just one of you call out one those posters on their offensive garbage. Please, take the incorrigibility out of your own comrades' eyes first.
No, you didn't. But others do and it is not coming from teh OWS side.
I would like to see one, just one, of the more civil conservative commenters speak out against that next time it happens.
First, I highly doubt that rape jokes only come from one side of the political ethos. I find that statistically unlikely.
Ha! The Troll!s still live in Salem! Quick, enact Sharia law!!!
Actually no. I have a friend who is pagan and nicknamed Rae. Pagans also typically refer to one another as "sister" and "brother" That's all. Get your panties out of twist now please.
that's a lot better than where I was. really.
There are a lot of OWS individuals throwing out ideas. On youtube some guy said no one should earn more than $100,000. Which would be a cut in pay for me and other engineers/programmers. That does NOT mean the entire group endorses these ideas.
CONSIDER THIS IDEA
(please don't subtract points from me):
And yes 3 dollars isn't much to live-on, but I believe prices would drop too. For example I remember when Comcast cable was only $25... they would be forced to lower their prices again so minimum wage workers could afford it.
Of course I don't have cable. It isn't a necessity (contrary to what some leaders tell us)
Someone proposed a maximum salary of $100, 000. I believe I am worth more than $100, 000, with my MBA and specialized training. I have a plan that would eliminate the need for most human resources workers, that would better match employers with future employees and provide for low cost training of employees. Frankly, I am going to look for a venture capitalist to help me get my plan, out in the real World. In a company, I should think that six figures, should be the minimum salary, for a guy like me; even seven figures, to be realistic. Hell, there are CEOs unable to articulate what their company does to make money. You would be surprised by how many jobs are landed by the who you know process; rather than the what you know process.
I certainly am better than WalMart cashier material. I can tell you how to improve on the WalMart supply chain management system, so that WalMart managers can identify, in real time, the desires of potential customers, just within close proximity to their store, much less living in their neighborhood. You would be silly to suggest that I am not worth, at least $100, 000. Hell, my improvements to Walmart's supply chain management system would revolutionize how Walmart identifies what they will need in their stores and how best to maximize profitability, in real time. I should be an executive at WalMart, much less a manager, given the implications of that plan alone. Just because a bunch of ego maniacs, in an office, think they are better than me, does not make it so.
Before you suggest some dip sh-t Objectivist nonsense about how, if I had value some rich a-hole would just see my value and invest in me, realize that Bill Gates became a billionaire because he utilized technology that Gates practically begged IBM to develop. IBM didn't think that Gates was worth the effort to invest the time and money in. Do you think that IBM still feels that Windows was not worth investing in? Spare me the Hollywood screenwriter rant. You think that the best of the best get the jobs? Ha! Most of the, so called, self made billionaires would be waiting tables or working as low paid IT techs, if they did not land a venture capitalist or two. There are plenty of unemployed people capable of running circles around many Fortune 500 CEOs and that is a fact.
This is one of the most stupid and uninformed rants I've ever read.
Thank you for your opinion. Care to elaborate?
People deserve payment for their labor. Why would you work for no pay? That's ridiculous. Furthermore, no capitalist economy can work if you don't pay people a living wage, which many would argue should be much higher than minimum wage in this country. Not only do you come up against high employee unrest and dissatisfaction, but you remove peoples' consumer power. Businesses thrive on efficient labor, which can't be had without meeting some employees' needs and demands, and consumer spending.
Stock brokers and investment consultants are just salespeople. They are no better than the person selling you something at Best Buy! The only difference is the person at Best Buy is most likely not lying to you about what they are selling to you!
Daennera, Well said!!!! I'm not sure why people who choose to produce less work, not to educate themselves or fail to risk all on an inventive business, feel like they should be entitled to handouts.
I have no problem taking care of my own, and would probably want to. I have a problem being forced to care for other people's own. In other words, yes I value the lives of those I love above others. But really, who doesn't?
At precisely what point does a fellow human being become the "other" someone outside your circle of love? A second cousin? The friend of a friend? Might it occur to you that not caring about somebody that somebody you love cares about might hurt them and I think it is true that we are all separated by only 6 degrees of separation. I personally know a Wall Street executive who himself was the son of socialists.
This reminds me of.....
Stool. The kind that comes out of ones anus when defecating.
"You are not worth a salary of 100K a year just because you are breathing! "
Amazingly - from the posts the OWSers think they DO deserve $100k just for breathing !!
This thread is not worth my time with a response. Get a clue!
-Looks at thread list -
Apparently you're in the minority!
So OWS says that if you make bad choices, people who make good choices need to bail you out. Except if you're a bank, then it's the reverse.
OWS doesn't "say" anything. It's a movement with a myriad of view points. But I do think that the vast majority of OWS activist have a very strong sense of compassion for their fellow humans, which is what motivates them. Today the official unemployment rate is 9% but it was also just reported that for most unemployed people their unemployment benefits have run out. Why is the rate of unemployment elastic. Why is it sometime 5% and sometimes more? Is this a reflection only of the varying character traits of the work force. That in some periods it has a stronger work ethic than in other periods and that this work ethic actually varies considerably every three months or so, or might something quite outside the power of the character of individual workers be operating?
IMO: the best stay employed. Want to be employed? Be one of the best. One of the most resourceful. Keep logistical plans A, B, and C nearby. I see ads everywhere where places are looking for employees. Attempt to start making yourself grateful for that min wage job and you might start to get somewhere.
IMO: the best stay employed. Want to be employed? Be one of the best. One of the most resourceful. Keep logistical plans A, B, and C nearby. I see ads everywhere where places are looking for employees. Attempt to start making yourself grateful for that min wage job and you might start to get somewhere.
Since employment statistics vary from quarter to quarter, then, by the definition above, what constitutes "the best" also varies from quarter to quarter. Whether or not I personally have a job and how much it pays, I simply can't identify too much with a "fuck you" attitude toward people who are less well off than me.
It's not a fuck you, but it is the nature of the world. I'm not going to fight that very natural law that some live and some die. And the odds of whether your live or die can change greatly just by your own decisions. I have better things to do with my time.
It's not a fuck you, but it is the nature of the world. I'm not going to fight that very natural law that some live and some die. And the odds of whether your live or die can change greatly just by your own decisions. I have better things to do with my time.
Apparently you don't have better things to do with your time than to argue with someone who disagrees with you. As for me, I'm frankly astonished and flabbergasted at your point of view, which to you seems merely rational but to me seems profoundly mean spirited. I suppose it is how one interprets social evolution. Is it really about the survival of the fitest or did we metaphorically find our way out of the caves though a sense of social solidarity, mutual aid, really caring about each other and appreciating what each of us have to contribute whether it's a well constructed tool or a well told story, though in the scheme of things it doesn't appear to me that the wealthiest among us today do either.
"Is it really about the survival of the fitest or did we metaphorically find our way out of the caves though a sense of social solidarity, mutual aid, really caring about each other and appreciating what each of us have to contribute whether it's a well constructed tool or a well told story,"
I don't know what history books you've been reading, but no time in history was it EVER about social solidarity, mutual aid, or caring about one another. Quid pro quo is as good as it ever got.
I don't know what history books you've been reading, but no time in history was it EVER about social solidarity, mutual aid, or caring about one another. Quid pro quo is as good as it ever got.
It's really more about anthropology than history and it is a debate in the anthropological community, though most anthropologists do not take the cranky mean spiritedness of Ayn Rand very seriously.
Except you have little to no proof of any society that ever accomplished anything of note under your love and fluffy bunnies system.
Except you have little to no proof of any society that ever accomplished anything of note under your love and fluffy bunnies system.
you make love sound like a commercial enterprise which it cannot be and work. We love each other in spite of our shortcomings and perhaps sometimes even because of them. Ultimately our individual character flaws have little or nothing to do with our feelings of compassion for each other. I think that if you spent several hours at any occupations it would be difficult even for you not to be moved by the rather profound feelings of real compassion and love that one finds there. Frankly, I too have a cynical side, but its rather hard to maintain in such an atmosphere.
If anyone can bring me a society that has used brotherly love as an economic basis and succeeded, I might be willing to consent a bit that handing out money to others for bad decisions won't end in apocalypse.
If anyone can bring me a society that has used brotherly love as an economic basis and succeeded, I might be willing to consent a bit that handing out money to others for bad decisions won't end in apocalypse.
It's not that bad yet, but during the Great Depression the official unemployment rate was around 25%, which is to say that everybody, if they were not themselves unemployed, had a father, mother, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, cousin, friend or neighbor who was unemployed. In such circumstances would you seriously be prepared to tell those close to you that their circumstances were there own dam fault. If not, exactly how bad does it have to get now before you are prepared to show some compassion?
I have no problem taking care of my own, and would probably want to. I have a problem being forced to care for other people's own.
In other words, yes I value the lives of those I love above others. But really, who doesn't?
Did anyone see THAT letter from a Wall Street worker? Here's my response: http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=5665
Crap, our politicians make 160,000+ a year for just breathing....People want us to to play follow the leader.. so there ya go.
Lots of people make lots of money for doing things that have no social utility whatever (such as, for example, selling derivatives, or organizing military expeditions to foreign lands). On the other hand many other people perform all manner of socially useful things, such as teaching children and collecting garbage and have to constantly struggle to make ends meet. Still others struggle just to find a job while in the mean time doing all sorts of socially useful things for which they recieve no compensation such as helping friends, neighbors and relatives. People in Zuccotti park, for example, are serving 3000 meals a day, yet they recieve no compensation for it, while two blocks away people sit in million dollar offices, in 4 thousand dollar suits, collecting million dollar salaries and doing nothing at all that is socially useful.
But someone is willingly paying them those sums of money. And who are you to decide that they shouldn't be?
The corporate organization of society is neither just nor democratic. Society couldn't last a week without teachers or garbage collectors, but it could do very well indeed without money changers, yet they are the one's who make most of the money
Our system is also based on the lack of force. We don't force companies to pay their garbage collectors any more than minimum wage (which should be abolished) and we don't force other companies to pay their employees less. Why do you care who gets paid what? Don't you have enough to do to focus on yourself?
The whole basis of OWS is an ethos of social solidarity, that we are our brother's keeper. That the condition of the least of us is the concern of all of us. That when we see someone less fortunate than us, we need to understand that there, but for the grace of God, go you or I. It is that spirit of love and brotherhood that animates OWS and what makes it so exciting and exhilerating to anyone who has spent any time there.
Unfortunately, most of the poor I know got there through their own horrible decisions. So there NOT for the grace of God I know. But thank God I have the sense to use the brain He gave me.
Mean spiritedness is not only contrary to the values of OWS but also to Christianity, Judaism and for that matter Islam as I understand it.
Not being mean, just being factual. If you pop out a kid on a high school diploma and a minimum wage job, I'm not going to feel too much sympathy for you.
Not being mean, just being factual. If you pop out a kid on a high school diploma and a minimum wage job, I'm not going to feel too much sympathy for you.
By definintion that doesn't strike me as very empathetic, which is to say it's a very selfish perspective, not especially consistent with the great religious teachings of the world much less the values of OWS
So.......I'm supposed to just give up all my hard earned resources to make sure someone without enough sense to do the cost benefit analysis of kids vs birth control? Not going to happen.
So.......I'm supposed to just give up all my hard earned resources to make sure someone without enough sense to do the cost benefit analysis of kids vs birth control? Not going to happen.
I'm just suggesting that the values expressed above are inconsistent both with the world's great religions and with OWS values. You can draw your own conclusions as to the implications of that
So OWS says that if you make bad choices, people who make good choices need to bail you out. Except if you're a bank, then it's the reverse.
So Daennera, when to we get to the culling of the herd? My elite friends say that 500 million is the max that we should have on planet earth..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
Actually I'm pretty sure nature will take care of that. She does a pretty good job of killing off people in Africa. If we would just get our noses out of their with all the aid, I'm sure nature would bring that population in line real quick.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't nature that's taking care of Africa..Unless we can call the Anglo-American Cabal "nature"...
Given the wealth of our society, everyone should be provided with the basic necessities of life: a decent place to live, healthy food, adequate clothing, health care, life long free public educational opportunities. Perhaps no one is worth 100 thousand a year without performing any socially useful labor, but then that would include most people making well over 100 thousand a year.
Yes, just free free free for everybody! Everyone gets to live the life of a king and do nothing but sit on their ass for it! Yes, that will make us a world superpower again.
You want to eat? You better work, and work hard for it. You want a roof over your head? You'd better work for it. You want health care? You better work for it.
These things are not free, and are in fact, brought about by the labor of others. You want these things? Pay for them with your own labor.
Cost of labor is based on "how little can we get away with", in the corporate world.
Please, I used to believe in all that hard work stuff too. I used to work 14 hour days with a full-time and part time job, but I got sick of never seeing my daughter, not having any time for myself, and just relaxing. Now I just trade momentum for my account, my uncle, and a few others. I sit in front of a computer, watch the monitor a few hours in the morning and the afternoon and make more money in about 15 hours or less a week than I used to do in 14 hours per day. I made 7% on my triple DOW long overnight for me and my friends on Wednesday! Hard work is truly for suckers! True, my dad worked long hours to give a middle-class life for us, but I hardly ever saw him, and that sucked, and when had that heart attack at 54, that really sucked. But hard work now-a-days? Seriously? I'm done at 4PM EVERYDAY. Some weeks, I'm good by Monday morning! I really can't help but laugh at this Hard Work pity party crap
This is just a crappy argument. Go back, do a basic amount of research on business and economics and then post something worth the forum
It's a crappy argument that one's salary is based on the value one produces? Really?
i would disagree with the Wal-Mart cashiers not producing 3 times minimum wage. Heck in about 3 minutes they can scan $300.00 worth of groceries. The profit margin is around 1%, so 3 dollars in three minutes, then a couple of minutes to pay and start scanning the next person. So $3.00 every 5 minutes =$36.00 per hour. I would think the profit margin is higher for other non grocery items.
I can't remember any time when a $300 grocery cart was scanned in 3 minutes. More like 15 minutes (because there are a lot of items and a lot of bags to pack).
So if we use your $3 profit margin that's only $12 per hour profit. Then subtract downtime when the store is near-empty and the cashiers are standing-around Not selling. That's $0 per hour profit. Average it all together and you get a salary close to minimum wage.
Walmart is pretty good at pinching every penny (which is why their home office looks so spartan). They pay their workers as high as possible while keeping prices as low as possible... that's been their mission since their founding. Yes they could pay their workers $20/hour like the managers get paid, but then you'd see the prices skyrocket. And customers would flee to Kmart or Joe's Food Emporium instead.
But we can have customers do it themselves for cheaper on a machine. So how is that cashier creating value?
Daennera, I am not interested in really discussing matters with you. In point of fact, I will not even look at your response to this or anything, for that matter; since I suspect you are an Objectivist and Ojectivists are Ayn Rand lovers. Still, since you think you are in a position to look down on cashiers, let me leave you with this:
How can WalMart cashiers create value? Imagine, you are put in charge of WalMart cashiers; you are their store manager. Now, how are we going to make a buck off of men and women scanning products? Do they only scan products? What else do they do? What else can they do? If you can't answer these questions, should you really judge the value of a cashier, in the first place? Here is a hint:
Each and every WalMart store, has a unique mix of products, tailored to the unique anticipated needs of customers; the information collected on anticipated customer needs is updated continuously, in real time. Knowing that, how can YOU create value, using your WalMart cashiers? Have you identified ways to Remember, if you cannot add value, you are not one to judge value, now are you?
Bahahahahahahahahaha. Lake County thinking at its best.
You're not a business owner are you?
Bahahahahahahaha. Indiana talks about how to best encourage business owners.
Considering we have a far friendlier business climate than IL, I think we can talk.
This is why so many are breaking down the door to get to Indiana. Oh, that's right. They aren't. This friendly business climate has been in Indiana for how long now?
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana's poverty rate hit 16.3 percent in 2010, the highest in at least 30 years, according to census data released Tuesday. http://www.theindychannel.com/money/29169627/detail.html
How is that working out for you?
The poverty rate and the businesses climate are not directly related. In fact, I think it is because we are so business friendly that we have such high poverty. Unlike communist IL, we aren't mandating retarded $10/hr min wages.
Here is a thought: poverty and unemployment and underemployment ARE related.
Communist Illinois? You don't seem to mind making a selling point of all that communist Chicago, now do you? You are so close to Chicago with all of the things that people can enjoy because...........lawd knows that you don't have any, Not too big on ethics either.
One day, when you are replaced by a machine, the brave and noble people who camp out and protest injustice will save a seat for you by the campfire
Believe you me, if I am being replaced by a machine, so has the rest of mankind.
And that's not worth fighting? What's wrong with you is what's wrong with America. The richest most powerful criminals in history are stealing your children's future with the help of the president and congress bought and paid for.
No it's not. One day machines will replace every single aspect of work we humans now do. That part is inevitable and, no, I feel no reason to fight it.
that's why you are a sad pathetic excuse for a human being
Actually, I have seen posts on here about people wanting MINIMUM wage to be like $30. That is close enough.
That's laughable.
It is. The fact that I've seen multiple posts back in October just shows you what kind of diverse people post on here. I am surprised many of those even know how to turn on a computer.
[Removed]
Personally? I have no idea what minimum wage should be, but I believe that any emancipated adult who is willing to work 40 hours a week at any job should make a minimum living wage. A living wage being the average amount calculated to pay for standard (not slum) housing, food, health care or insurance, and basic necessities (clothing, basic transportation to employment and to get food) for two people, which allows for the needs of single parents, spouses who must care for other spouses, etc. A living wage should also include minimum paid sick time (and some states are already moving to institute this - Connecticut, for example) and vacation (which has been proven to increase productivity).
My reasoning for this is threefold. First, it would massively reduce the need for many social programs such as food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc., and puts responsibility back on the individual to manage their own money and lives. It's ridiculous that people who work 40 hours a week qualify for food stamps - but they do because of the pathetic wages they are paid. Second, it does not remove the "incentive" many economists point to when they tout the capitalist system. It allows for a more equitable form of capitalism. If we do not institute such a system, we will see inequity grow exponentially, which will create extreme social unrest and eventually cause the collapse of the entire system. Finally, it is humane. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that it is acceptable for anyone to live in substandard housing or lack access to basic health care in the wealthiest country to ever exist. Substandard housing should not even be legally permissible, much less morally acceptable.
It is not necessary to completely destroy capitalism to improve the lives of millions of people in this society. But we do have to be willing to say that it is simply morally reprehensible for some people to live like sultans while others are living in dangerous, substandard conditions. Such a system is eventually not even beneficial to the wealthiest, because societal unrest will threaten their very existence.
CONSIDER THIS IDEA
(please don't subtract points from me):
And yes 3 dollars isn't much to live-on, but I believe prices would drop too. For example I remember when Comcast cable was only $25... they would be forced to lower their prices again so minimum wage workers could afford it.
Of course I don't have cable. It isn't a necessity (contrary to what some leaders tell us). I use an antenna cause it's free
I think you are seriously underestimating how cheap foreign labor costs are. Many foreign workers live on less than a dollar a day. Not to mention the fact that americans are certainly not willing to perform difficult, dangerous factory work for $3 an hour. You would essentially doom service workers to $3 an hour at McDonalds and make things even worse.
Yes I know, but You underestimate how much it costs to transport goods across 10,000 miles (especially now that oil is going over 100/barrel). It is cheaper to build the goods close to the markets on US soil.
Provide proof please. I hear this repeated a lot (almost like propaganda) but I've never seen any Proof of it. I happen to know several persons who would be happy to collect 3 dollars/hour rather than their current 0 an hour. They want a factory job, and to feel productive.
Also assembling iPhones isn't really dangerous.
We DO have OSHA regulations after all.
I know people want to work, but I really don't think people want to do seriously difficult work for $3 an hour, no matter how much they want to work. My husband used to work in a factory that made auto glass, and he said it was brutal - hot, physically exhausting, somewhat dangerous (large heavy equipment that can take off a hand). I would personally prefer welfare to working for less than even the current inadequate minimum wage doing that type of work.
I'm still waiting for Proof that americans don't want to assemble iPhones for 3 dollars an hour. Sounds like it has no basis in fact (i.e. no polls to back it up, or evidence, or anything). I would certainly do it if I was a young man, unemployed, looking to start his career.
IN FACT that was one of my first jobs... assembling computers. It was a great environment to work, but sadly the company couldn't sustain 7 dollar an hour pay so they subcontracted to Foxconn (china). If the minimum wage had been 3, they'd probably still be here.
Welfare/unemployment is only good for two years and then it runs-out. Many of the people I mentioned have run out and need a job, but sadly they've been moved overseas (see my previous paragraph).
Well, I guess I think it's better for people to work at McDonalds making minimum wage as it is than to assemble i-phones for $3 an hour. And I still think you're way underestimating how low costs really are in other countries - not only do they pay the workers next to nothing, they have no regulations at all, basically. The products they produce are under constant recall, the environmental regulations are horrendous, and the working conditions are so bad, some factories in China had to install nets so that people couldn't jump off balconies and kill themselves. I don't want to reproduce those conditions here, sorry.
But that means you have 10% of the US workforce unemployed. You want to keep it that way?? I'd rather see the wage drop, the chinese factories move back to america, and near-zero unemployment as a result.
Also you are incorrect when you say they have no regulations. China has a law that forbids workers from going over 60 hours a week (something we don't have), and also a break every two hours, and safety rules to protect hands from getting chopped off (and other safety measures). Working at Foxconn is much like working here, except lower pay.
AND ONCE AGAIN YOU'VE STILL NOT PROVIDED PROOF that people would rather be jobless than work for 3 dollars/hour assembling iPhones or Macs or televisions or ..... HOW CAN you make such a statement when you've never proved it to be true? That's like if I just kept repeating "Sony Bluray forbids porn" over and over without proving my case.
Many of my friends/relatives would happily assemble iPhones for 3 an hour, rather than be jobless.
Obviously I can't provide proof because as far as I know there hasn't been a national survey asking if people want to lower the minimum wage to $3 an hour in order to have full employment. How can you make a statement over and over that people WOULD work for such horrible wages? You haven't provided proof either - this is just a hypothetical discussion. I personally believe that it would be an unmitigated disaster if you reduce the minimum wage to $3, and I see absolutely no reason that cost of living would decline if you did so.
Then how can you (and many many other) make a claim like "Americans are certainly not willing to perform difficult, dangerous factory work for $3 an hour." You shouldn't be spreading false facts if you have nothing to back them up.
Thanks.
As for my comment, I think people would rather be taking-home $120 a week (plus welfare assistance), then be unemployed for $0 a week. It's as self-evident as saying people would rather eat then not eat. Or that people would rather breathe air than suffocate.
"My reasoning for this is threefold. First, it would massively reduce the need for many social programs such as food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc."
No it wouldn't. Your "min wage" would just become the new poverty line as prices increase to reflect the higher base wage.
There can be morality within capitalism. For instance, I absolutely refuse to rent out a house I myself would not feel safe living in. As such, my houses are generally nicer than other rentals in their market. However, the constant red tape and bureaucracy of building codes makes improving other houses difficult. Yes we need standards or houses would become abhorrently dangerous. But get rid of the red tape, have inspectors that are fair and knowledgeable, and not have the whole thing cost a fortune. It would be alot easier to get substandard housing up to par, if people refused to either A) rent it at all, or B) pay as much as they do for it.
If the cost of living increases, the living wage increases, period. This would require producers and stores to adjust prices to reflect wages, and vice-versa, which only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that american workers haven't seen an inflation-adjusted wage increase in FORTY YEARS.
I'd also point out that we do have standards and we STILL have housing that is abhorrently dangerous. I used to work as a case manager for individuals with serious schizophrenia and also had to find them affordable housing. The only places I could place them had holes in the walls, floors, and stairs, asbestos problems, etc. This was well known, but tolerated. I can't even imagine what conditions would be like if you reduced the standards.
I commend you for maintaining any properties you rent in a safe manner. But unfortunately, we permit millions of unsafe units to be rented every single year. Many state/county projects are not even maintained. This is completely immoral in such a wealthy society.
So you're in a never ending cycle of wage and price increases? Look, if wages go up, prices go up. The more you push up wages, the faster prices will rise. You can't get around that law.
I didn't say to reduce standards. In fact they could stand to be raised. Just implement them more effectively, efficiently, and less painfully.
Why does it matter if prices rise so long as wages rise?
Perhaps because the US is not an island unto itself and has to participate in the global economy. One where people won't have the wages to support buying a $1mil loaf of bread?
Well, we don't import bread from China. And since, as you say, we participate in the global economy, we are importing goods at super cheap prices, I'm not sure why everyone think we'd have to start superinflating prices just because a larger group of people were sharing in the wealth of the system. If workers had to be paid a living wage, executives would have to take a smaller one. So I'm not sure why that would cause an increase in prices. It's worth noting that we've HAD plenty of inflation for the last 40 years with NO raise in incomes. So the two don't seem to be linked, really.
And there is your fallacy. Just because you raise the bottom does NOT mean the top takes a haircut. The economy doesn't work like that. Just because I get $10, doesn't also then mean I've deprived someone else of $10. It's not a zero sum deal. And yes we've had inflation because there is more money in our system overall. The more money that exists, the less each dollar is worth. What percentage owns that money has nothing to do with it.
But this is why wages MUST be tied to cost of living. If we recalculate cost of living, say, every other year, those individuals who set prices will not be able to simply raise prices exponentially to keep poverty in place. And I think this is the missing piece - people keep calling for better wages, but they aren't adding that these wages need to be linked to average cost of living, or they are meaningless. If you look at straight average wages, it would appear that americans are far wealthier than they used to be, but when adjusted for inflation they haven't had a wage increase in 40 years. And this is the problem.
Why wouldn't they be able to raise prices? What's stopping them? More I guess the question would be this: if people suddenly get more buying power (in this case through increased wages) they are going to want to spend more. If they want to spend more, prices will increase. So what's to stop the increase?
They could raise prices, but if cost of living increased, wages would increase as well because they would be tied to cost of living. This is my entire point.
This is the point - companies would NOT raise costs astronomically, because they would be screwing themselves. There would be no real reason to raise costs to some crazy astronomical level.
And who would we be selling our products to for such astronomical prices?
[Removed]
More Ayn Rand hate...
So you think businesses can stay open by paying more to their employees than said employees produce? Seeing as how I did not even mention Rand, or individualism, or objectivism; your response confuses me. Is there some economic principal you wish to discuss?
What no reply to the list of no good dropouts that aren't even worth minimum wage I provided to you? I think I hit the nail on the head with my Ayn Rand comment...
What list? What are you talking about?
You are right. I am priceless because i am breathing. My worth is incalculable.
To you maybe, but we talking about what someone will give you for your work. Whatever you want to think in your own little mind is of no consequence to the market.
How Bout This. The system has to go. There is nothing more Dysfunctional then Functional Fiscal Policy. I don't give an aching reprisal what is of consequence to the current market because it won't be around much longer!
My money is on the current market carrying onward and staying essentially unchanged.
Minimum wage is a gift?
The gift is if I show up to any said store to scan my own items. In the last decade I have watched those, I knew that it was going to put people out of work. The extra money that was saved did not go to the remaining employees and did not get passed on to the consumer.
I am not going to get off of work to go to work to scan my own items. There is a grocery store that moved to that. I hope that the food rots on their shelves.
It can very well be a gift if you are not producing more than you cost. Then, yes, it is a freebie. Do you deny that it is impossible that minimum wage workers can cost more than they produce?
You mean that you haven't realized a savings at keeping employees at part time to avoid paying for insurance and also making sure that there is no solid schedule allowing them to find and keep a second job isn't working out for your benefit?
It may very well be a benefit, but do I get more of a benefit than what I'm paying them?
Yes, you do. You get customers. And you most certainly do benefit when you are dealing with underemployment and keeping them for x amount of hours right before you get around paying for crappy insurance. Minimum wage guarantees that you cannot screw around an employee anymore than you already have figured out how to do.
Thus far, I have found no legit minimum wage people demanding $100,000 a year jobs.
I may get some customers, but does the amount of profit I make from those few extra customers exceed what the costs are? If the costs are greater than or equal to the profit, then I have to cut costs somewhere. Simple economics.
Wal-Mart has a history of not paying workers overtime,or for breaks, exploiting younger workers, paying men more then women, hiring undocumented workers.
Wal-Mart subsidies? http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/state_detail.html?state=IN
The above is very interesting, don't you think?
Avoiding taxes? http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455149.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11117/1142259-100.stm Interesting read: http://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-country-of-wal-mart/
What was the profit for this past year?
Shall we look at Meijers? How about Meijers outsourcing to India? http://www.planetoutsourcing.org/entry/meijer-outsouricng-jobs-to-india/ What were Meijers profit this past year? Underemployment problems?
And so? Just because you all voted people in that don't care to make good, fair laws and enforce them, doesn't mean I'm incorrect.
No, you see, the rest of us have to pay more in taxes because you strongly feel that you have the right to treat people without dignity. And now you want to blame it on a lack of law? THE LAW: MINIMUM WAGE. You can not screw the people at the bottom because you are unethical. Sorry. Sometimes there are laws that exist in favor of the people. But, thanks for playing.
I interject to say I like Daennera.Mostly because I prefer smart people.
I for one would rather talk to a cashier to ask questions, correct an error,or just pay the correct amount(yes maybe they will need to get a manager to accomplish something) but they are working caring people(to most extent) and not some machine. It is the upper management structure that is sucking the life out of America. I'm not worried about 40K, 50K, 100K salaries. I worry about the Millions in bonuses!!! Any and all corporations that continue the greedy practices of giving $100's of millions in bonuses to greedy managers and laying off workers and not hiring because of "poor economic climate" deserve to and will cease to exist. It is our right and destiny to see that they are defeated!
Companies have the right to decide how they spend their money. You have the right not to do business with them for any reason, including how they spend their money.
Ok, but huge bonuses and 3.6 billion dollars in profits give lie to your statement that the workers barely produce enough to justify their pay.
It is evidence of greed at the top. Squeeze the line workers for every drop of their labor so that those at the top profit obscenely. That is exactly what OWS "complains" about. That is exactly what the 99/1% dichotomy is about.
Some give all, others profit from it and don't share.
Even David Brooks is saying things like:
" Up until 1970 or so, a chief executive would have been embarrassed to take home more than $20 million. But now there is no shame, and top compensation zooms upward."
They have to product enough to both justify their pay AND make a profit. You can't have it come out even at the end of the day, or the business cannot justify it's existence. And of course, just like the workers who want more money, owners want more money too. It's human nature. But they will go out of business if enough people refuse to buy their products because of their pay practices. You want better wages, only buy from companies that provide those.
I do practice what I preach. I have only ever bought one item from a Walmart in my entire life. : ) I am completely willing to pay more to patronize local small businesses and union grocery stores and I do that...
In other parts of the country, Walmart customers are sort of "captive" to Walmart by geography (no other places to shop within 20 or 30 miles) or by income (can't afford anything else) or at least that's what some people tell me.
You're missing something. You've neglected the first lesson of economics. Supply and demand. If you are unskilled or applying for a low skilled position, the supply of unskilled workers is extremely high right now. Therefore, the demand for you is low. Low demand = low price or wage. If you have a unique skill that many employers need, the demand for you will be much higher. High demand = high price or wage. It's a very simple concept. Another thing that seems to get lost in these discussions; low skill/ low wage positions should not be considered careers. These should be transitory jobs for young people or those that are between jobs. One should not expect to raise a family on the salary earned while flipping burgers. If that were the case, why educate?
Even before we had such a glut of supply, a high school drop out STILL wasn't worth minimum wage. They are worth less now. And I agree. All this nonsense about "you can't support a family of four on minimum wage" is b.s. You aren't supposed to be raising a family on minimum wage. You're supposed to be supporting just yourself and trying to work your way up in the world. You're not supposed to be supporting a spouse or kids on that.
Henry Ford: This automobile billionaire was born in abject poverty. He never saw the four walls of school but he went on to build Ford Motor Company and become one of the richest men that ever lived.
"Thinking is the hardest work to do, that's why so few people are engaged in it." – Henry Ford
Walt Disney: Walt, regarded as the most influential animator because of his creativity with cartoons. He dropped out of high school at 16 and founded Walt Disney; a company which now has an annual revenue of about $30billion.
"If you can dream it, you can do it." – Walt Disney
Successful Entrepreneurs and World's Richest School Drop Out Billionaires
Ray Kroc: Billionaire Ray Kroc never saw the four walls of school and spent most of his life working as a salesman. He bought McDonald's in 1961 for $2.7m and grew it into a multi billion dollar company.
"Press on. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." – Ray Kroc
Debbi Fields: A 20 year old housewife with no education and business experience started Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chippery and became the most successful cookie company owner. She later renamed, franchised, and then sold Mrs. Field’s Cookies.
“You don’t have to be superhuman to do what you believe in.” – Debbi Fields
Cosmos Maduka: Nigerian Elementary school drop out and billionaire founder of the Coscharis Group.
Ingvar Kamprad: Billionaire founder of IKEA. He dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to start IKEA; now the top home furniture retailer in the world, with over 90,000 employees working in its 200-plus stores, and annual revenues in excess of $10 billion.
"I'm not afraid of turning 80 and I have lots of things to do. I don't have time for dying." – Ingvar Kamprad
Carl Lindner: Billionaire investor and founder of United Dairy Farmers. He dropped out of high school at the age of 14 to deliver milk for his family diary.
. Bill Gates: He is the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft Corporation, the world largest software company. Dropped out of Harvard to focus on building Microsoft. According to Forbes magazine, Bill Gates has held the position of the world richest man for thirteen consecutive years and he not showing a sign of letting go that position.
Thomas Edison: Thomas Edison was labeled dumb and scatterbrain by his school teachers but he went on to become one of the world's greatest inventors and founded General Electric; one of the most powerful companies in the world.
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." – Thomas Edison
Orji Uzor Kalu: He is one of the richest men on the soil of Africa. This young billionaire was rusticated from college for his participation in a student's protest. Instead of lamenting over his predicament; he started trading on palm oil and from that humble beginning, he grew his business into a conglomerate "Slok Group." Though he was later pardoned by the school authorities, he rejected the amnesty offer thereby refusing to return to school.
"A good businessman must have nose for business the same way a journalist has nose for news. Once your eyes, ears, nose, heart and brain are trained on business, you sniff business opportunities everywhere.” – Orji Uzor Kalu
Li Ka Shing: Billionaire owner of Hutchinson Whampoa; one of the largest conglomerates in Hong Kong, with operations that span over fifty countries and more than 220,000 staff worldwide. Dropped out of school at the age of 15 and started out by selling watch bands.
"The first year, I didn’t have much capital so I did everything myself. I had to keep my overhead low by learning everything about running a business, from accounting to fixing the gears of my equipment. I really started from scratch." – Li Ka Shing
Richard Branson: Best known for his adventurous spirit and outrageous business tactics. He dropped out of school at the age of 16 to start his first successful business venture; Student Magazine, bought his own 79-acre Caribbean island when he was just 24 and he was knighted in 1999. He is the billionaire founder of the Virgin brand and its 360 companies. His companies include the famous Virgin Atlantic Airways.
"I wanted to be an editor or journalist. I wasn't really interested in becoming an entrepreneur, but I soon found I had to become an entrepreneur in order to keep my magazine going." – Richard Branson
Successful Entrepreneurs and World's Richest School Drop Out Billionaires
Lawrence J. Ellison: Larry Ellison dropped out of college twice and was told by his adoptive father that he would never amount to anything but he went on to become a billionaire by building Oracle, the world's second largest software company.
"I have had all the disadvantages required for success." – Larry Ellison
Michael Dell: He dropped out of college at the age of 19 to start PC’s Limited; later renamed Dell Computers Inc. Dell became the most profitable PC manufacturer in the world making Michael Dell a billionaire.
“I had to give it a full go and see what happened.” – Michael Dell
Steve Jobs: Billionaire co-founder of Apple Inc and Pixar; dropped out of Reed College to start Apple.
Henry Ford: This automobile billionaire was born in abject poverty. He never saw the four walls of school but he went on to build Ford Motor Company and become one of the richest men that ever lived.
"Thinking is the hardest work to do, that's why so few people are engaged in it." – Henry Ford
Oh I see the list now. I did not associate a name to this. When I say a high school drop out is worth less than minimum wage, I'm talking about the work they perform. Yes plenty of high school drop outs have done things to be very very successful, but at that point they were no longer doing minimum wage work, now were they?
Also, your list comprises only the far right side of the bell curve. What about the far left side? How are they worth min wage?
"a high school drop out STILL wasn't worth minimum wage. They are worth less now"
Yeah..........they are.............so????
We have more unemployed people now than before the crash. Supply is up ad demand is down. Hence their labor is worth less.
So you are the type that want to help the poor and uneducated by paying them 2 bucks an hour. So after a ten hour day they can afford a drink and perhaps a bus ride home. I understand where you are coming from. : /
You're bringing humanity into economics. Doesn't work that way. Whether I want to, or would be willing to, pay someone $2/hr isn't the point. The point is the labor market is no different than any other market. Supply and demand set the price.
Hence, the checks on unbridled capitalism. Min wage laws-that's the point. Don't like it? Try your business in pick-a-country-in Africa.
We the people do not have to give you unbridled capitalism. We do not owe it to you. You are undeserving of it.
The problem is with your great "economics" is that it is all theory. It is the softest "science" there is. You should have learned this in high school.
Supply and demand set the price. That is all that is needed to know. Minimum wage laws should be abolished so that I can actually start paying menial labor what it's worth, about $2/hr.
You will not win that. We don't owe you that. And just as a heads up, they already teach economics in high school.
Maybe not $2 an hour, but I guarantee you that after this little theatrical performance, us capitalists are not going to be raising min wage anytime soon.
I don't think most OWS supporters believe in entitlements. I certainly don't. I just want our corrupted political system to actually represent the people and not be a slave to Wall Street -- which is robbing the middle class in our country.
I mostly agree with you, but I would say that the People are not a slave to Wall Street. It's more accurate to say they're a slave to K street! The lobbyist control Congress and get everything they want. Yes, it's usually for big corporations. Wall Street is not robbing the middle class. It's their surrogates inside the beltway of Washington that are. What OWS should be for is throwing out all of the special loopholes and tax breaks in the tax code. Then, we can debate realistically about tax rates.
True
We don't all believe in entitlement.
I agree. But, this argument seems to be a common one. OWS does not have a coordinated message, so addressing its concerns and demands is difficult.
Yes, I feel though that is it partly from the loudest not the majority, which is always hippies and anarchists. They latch onto anything.But I retain hope, simply because based on the early "wishlist" they made, it mostly seems to center around reform. I don't think anyone in a position to get something written up is listening tho. :(
"People are paid based on what they can produce."
Unless they are Wall Street criminals who buy presidents and congressmen, then they just take whatever they want from the US Treasury, and when they take it all, the Feds print 'em some more.
You want a big salary, you have to STEAL it like the fat cats on Wall Street do.
Because everyone that makes more than you stole it, right?
you obviously deserve every penny you take
You deserve every penny someone is willing to pay you, you mean.
what do I mean? you seem to think you know...
Yes, you want something for nothing.
wrong
Just give em the $100,000 a year salary and be done with it. We'll just raise the price of a pair of Birkenstocks to $650.00
You sound bitter. Remember that famous musicians and athletes don't cure cancer and they make millions. They sell products via TV commercials that poison and pollute but that in itself isn't the problem because no one has to buy their product or watch the televised game. The problem is that these commercials misrepresent and flat-out lie about their products. Ball players drop the ball, over and over. Contract...millions. Fair?
I fail to see how I sound bitter. I might be upset at the lack of basic economic education in this country. But I'm not seeing bitter at all.
Ok. Sorry. Thanks for not reacting like some less educated thing.
If some of you had your way, I have absolutely no doubts you'd have slavery back in a heart beat.
No, libertarians do not believe in slavery. You cannot own another person, nor do you own his decisions. Third parties, including governments, should remove themselves as much as possible from private contracts.
You call yourself a libertarian but you don't even know what libertarian is. What about Left Libertarian.
You know pure libertarianism and pure marxism are equally dysfunctional NEITHER WORKS.
I can't think where we've tried pure libertarianism before. Communism has been tried and failed, so we know that much at least.
If corporate power was reined in, personhood ended, transnational conglomerates and monopolies broken up, citizens united overturned, etc etc etc then I think libertarian would work. But as it stands right now corporations are considered citizens.
I don't want a corporation to have the same rights given to natural persons in the constitution. Things would be very bad in that case.
I don't see what is wrong by protecting a corporation's property much like you protect your own. I don't think corporations should be subject to unreasonable search and seizure anymore than I am.
The transnational conglomerates have so much money they OWN the government. That is how blackwater and private corporate armies referred to as "security forces", the oil spills, and a million other examples of them expanding their power atthe expense of the public good and the individual natural person get started.
This is an example of a mental and legislative disease.
Their power NEEDS to be curbed.
Then don't buy oil and vote politicians in that will cut taxes so there is no money to pay Blackwater. Problem solved.
Vote people in that will say "no you made the mess, you're going to clean it up"
Vote people in that won't get into unnecessary wars. My god, the vote is the most powerful tool you have. Use it.
I want to vote for Ron Lawl But he is being ostracized because of the lobbyists and the black market bribes to the two party system.
Okay...........but that doesn't prevent you or anyone else voting for him now does it?
I've seen Libertarians argue in favor of letting people "contract" themselves into slavery. I'm pretty sure there's an article on LewRockwell that advocates something like that.
It's not slavery if you agreed to it. We believe people can do whatever they wish. And if they wish to enter a contract whereby they receive no pay, but lodging and food in return for work; then so be it.
Not you Libertarians, but some of your Conservative pals would in a heart beat.
Want, perhaps, but I think we're so far gone from actual widespread societal accepted slavery that I don't see how we could get quite back there again. However, a sharecropper type system, or a company town system, is still within the realm of possibility sure.
Absolutely, this is why many of us progressives fear that the true aim of some of the 1%ers is to re-create a 21st Century version of feudalism AKA neo-feudalism if they can get away with it. Their method is to deny millions work and impoverish millions more. Does this ring a bell? Were witnessing this happening as we chat.
Then don't participate. The only way 1% of the population can do anything is if the other 99% go along with it. People don't seem to understand that you don't HAVE to do something if you don't want to. You may not wish to participate, but do so anyways as you feel there is more cost than benefit to not participating, but that is your right as well.
"The only way 1% of the population can do anything is if the other 99% go along with it." Fanciful idea, but the reality is your choices are extremely limited if you can't afford food or shelter aren't they?
As an avid DIYer I can definitely attest that one doesn't HAVE to buy much of anything in the world.
I hate to see someone spinning their wheels getting no where, so I must step in. Daennera, you are caught in a discussion with someone that already believes that republicans, conservatives, libertarians want and desire slavery. They are not open-minded enough to see your point of view, more less your point in this discussion. Without that key element, you will continue spinning your wheels.
Best of luck.
There are many different systems of economics and money. Some of the systems are non-socialist and yet are based on generosity. Binary economics for instance. You need to step outside your brainwashing that a certain level of work merits a certain level of pay. Economic theory has advanced so much. Be conscious of your brainwashing. There are so many other systems that would be more equitable, create better community, allow for more time with family, and are not socialist.
Please open your mind.
Just because things are a certain way does not mean there isn't a better way...
I'm aware of the warm fuzzy kum-bi-ya versions of economic systems. My taste in such systems tends to run a little more.....uh....cut throat if you will. Just my preference.
I want to live in a nation where people are less stressed.
You do know that some of us thrive on stress, right? That if everything is just going hunky dory; we will purposely look for some greater, nearly unreachable, challenge. I live for the challenge of success, and I have found that the most successful generally do as well. It's the fear of failure that creates things such as the OWS. These people fear failure more than anything, and therefore they want the government to ensure that they are always successful to a certain degree. Pathetic really.
I think it is the acceptance of failure. More accurately, the acceptance of mediocrity.
I think this comes from a zero-sum mentality. They believe that for someone to get money, then someone must lose money. That means that the rich must have stole/cheated to get rich. It is okay to be poor because they were cheated out of their money by the rich. This is why it is okay to "punish" the rich by TAKING their money, because after all, they took it from someone else.
Economics must really start to be taught in high schools. We know it's not a zero sum game. Wealth, value, and productivity is not set in stone and can grow and contract as necessary.
Oh I agree. I see the problem as financial eduction. Teach these kids to do more than balance a check book and use a credit card. But you know, their teachers are middle class, their parents are middle class, they are taught to be middle class.
I believe it comes down to 3 different mentalities. Poor, middle class and rich. At the basics, the poor are taught to be dependent, the middle class are taught that a good education and a good job will make you wealthy, and the rich are taught to use money and leverage to make more money.
But this is my belief. The people you are arguing with, do not think this way. They are stuck in either the poor or middle class. Most likely, the middle class. They watched their parents struggle with money all their lives. They are struggling with money. So it comes that if someone is making a million a year, they MUST be doing something illegal, or at the least, immoral.
You couldn't be more wrong. Whether or not you agree with their motives, these people believe they will be successful with every fiber of their being. Some thrive on stress, great, but that doesn't mean everyone does. I agree society should not take care of every need but should attempt to create a system that is functional for everyone. If people slip through the cracks, that is just as unethical as living off the government with no motivation of self. Many people who have "lost their way" or slipped through are Einsteins and Beethovens but their talent remains undiscovered because society wants to them to provide labor for psychopathic corporations. I do NOT advocate socialism. I advocate a new hybrid system that allows people to shine and become their best, that invests in people rather then debt.
Read this Do Your Duty And Repost The Following Links At Least Once:
http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1010295/-Naomi-Klein-buys-into-the-Iceland-Revolution-mythos
What about love? What about compassion? Don't you want the world to be something beautiful?
I'm not sure what you mean by invest in people rather than debt. I invest in myself and carry little debt other than a primary mortgage. So who are these people you speak of?
Money in it's current form is nothing more the re-constituted debt. You know banks can loan out nine times the amount of deposits the have on hand. That means if they have ten dollars, they can go poof and type ninety dollars on a screen, loaning that "money" with interest. So the bank worker spent a half hour worth of work creating that "debt" but the single mother has to spend twenty years paying the bank. I do not see how anyone in their right mind could call that a loan.
Investing in people means you issue stock for individuals. Many celebrities have corporations representing them but these aren't traded on the stock market. Instead of calling it ownership, you can call it vested sponsorship. This helps the individual because they can use the money from their IPO to go to college or etc.c Instead of celebrities it is everyday people who have a gift, dream or talent.
I know so many examples of people who would have been so successful and created value in the market, in acting, robotics, alternative energy etc, but because they came from a humble background they struggled and never had the opportunity to engage in their true gift full time.
Why is said single mother A) single and B) getting into 20 years of debt. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
You can use your salary to go to college. I'm afraid such a convoluted system of employee investment would reduce the flexibility of the workforce to move from job to job. Also, if businesses are forced to invest as well as pay employees, you're driving up the cost of labor, lowering the competitiveness of American companies, and asking for inflation.
We all do things we don't necessarily love to do to put food on the table. Doing what you love is NOT a human right, it is a privilege to be reserved for those who earned it.
Wow! You didn't hear anything I said did you. This is why the planet is in the shape it is in. No one listens to each other.
I feel sorry for you. You think these socialists are going to give up???
I am aware you are not going to give up your point of view. That is clear.
So you got conflict and nobody likes to be the one whose deeply held belief is being ignored.
The more both sides of this ignore each other or try to convince one another. The sooner we will have civil war.
Fucking sad state of affairs.
I STRONGLY believe it is a RIGHT to do what you love.
Of course it's a right to do what you love. Do whatever you want. But it does not then also mean that someone must pay you to do it. If you want to eat, you have to do things which people are willing to pay you for.
You know, this is really about ethics don't you?
The people are pissed off because there is a lack of ethics. NO matter what system you have it won't work if there is unethical behavior happening all the time.
Banks and big publicly held corporations are done. These people are not going to stop until the system is changed.
I've just seen a lot of this minimum guaranteed wage nonsense. Of course the people calling for this cannot possibly wrap their walnut sized brains around the fact that inflation would very swiftly erode any buying power the extra money had as prices necessarily rose to accommodate such a huge jump in labor costs. Also, the idea that one has to provide value in excess of their labor costs in order to be employed just blows their bitty minds to pieces.
Yes, if a guaranteed $100,000 salary were the minimum wage then it would instantly become the new poverty line.
Why are there so many people here who have never taken an economic class who think at they're qualified to engineer sweeping changes to the economy?
Because in this country everyone gets a vote and we will always find that the lowest common denominator thinks we need to pander to them.
CONSIDER:
If the minimum wage was dropped to 3 dollars a lot of those Chinese factories (like the iPhone and other e-gadget factories) would move back to the USA. Unemployment would drop to near-zero.
And yes 3 dollars isn't much to live-on, but I believe prices would drop too. For example I remember when Comcast cable was only $25... they would be forced to lower their prices again so minimum wage workers could afford it.
Yes, we might actually have a free market again, if we allow it to work. Although I do not put a lot of stock in people actually giving up cable. I believe the masses would prefer to give up decent housing, nutritious food, and education before they gave up cable.
[Removed]
Please stop posting this nonsense. I'm well aware of what the zeitgeist movement is. No, we are not moving to a resource based economy. No, machines cannot do every single job that we need done. People will still have to work, and they are going to want payment of some kind for their services. I also don't want to have to trade a cow for some bread to trade for some rice to trade for some wool BEFORE I can trade for the apples I wanted in the first place. Resource based economies SUCK as they are the most inefficient you can get.