wealth inequality

[Theodarzna]

I would even go as far as to say that the only common denominator between rich people is the fact that they where all lucky in one form or another. I'm not saying that hard work doesn't pay off, but it only goes this far. There are boatloads of people who worked their asses off and have nothing to show for it.

I would argue the vast majority of people who toil and labour are going nowhere. The jobs the poor work are incredibly taxing to ones physical and mental health and they work long hours, sometimes more than just the one. And I can rest assured, that in their entire lives, they will likely never be worth more than the horse I ride for idle amusement, for which I own purely by the happy fortune of being born to the right parents.

[Endus]

Once again, you seem to be using a different definition of what a "need" actually is. You seem to do that a great deal. Is there a different dictionary that you use, I'd like a copy. What we've been arguing over, is what rights a worker has. You seem to think they have more rights than I do. You also seem to believe that a business does not have those same rights. I do not think a "living wage" is a right, and I certainly do not believe that it is the role of a business to guarantee that right.

If your solution to stop people from suffering (often voluntarily), is to make others suffer... that's not exactly a good justification.

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays

Article 9;

Article 9
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

Article 11;

Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ges/CESCR.aspx

Take particular notes of 7(a), and 11(1).

That's the basics of international human rights law on this subject. You're right; we're using different terms. The difference is, mine are correct.

[Theodarzna]

Not if they hold their livelihoods on ransom to begin with.

It's like saying slaveowners need their slaves to survive, which is essentially the concept in play here.

Especially if legally, not working for an employer is for all practical purposes completely illegal. Depending on your location, living completely off the grid may even be practically illegal.

[Felya]

It is rational. Someone prefers to save on rent and go on holiday, someone likes to live in a mansion 10 minutes from workplace and save on holiday.
I, for instance, pay extra so that I can have a nice place close to work, even though I could get a room and commute every day for a fraction of what I spend.

Housing is a need, not a want. Even if you have wants, to meet the needs.

[Endus]

Using the threat of force of government to push your will onto others is the exact same thing that corporatists do. By you doing it, you are justifying the corporations when they do it. So, when you whine about them doing it, that makes you a hypocrite.

No, it doesn't. All forms of government will, through the fact that they govern, use force to ensure their laws are, well, enforced. This isn't somehow a unique or identifying characteristic of corporatism.

So, again; you are lying, and deliberately misleading people. I've corrected you enough on this that I can't chalk this up to innocent misunderstanding any longer. This is deliberate misinformation, at this point.

[Theodarzna]

This is what bothers me the most of your comment. You seem to paint it as a bad thing, but in the overall poor people having purchasing people is generally good.

Its a bad thing for them, and it makes their lives more expensive than it need be. It's a good thing if you're invested in Wal-Mart for example.

[Machismo]

What is the difference between one institution and another?

To quote the Federalist Papers, Control over a man's subsistence is domination of his will. You seem totally fine with one form of coercion, but repulsed by another for no reason.

Not at all. I see no reason to involve government where it is not actually needed. Having little to negotiate with is not the fault of the other side of the table. Should I run to the government if I spend too much on a car?

[Deleted]

If that's a fact, then every government in the history of time would have to have done it. Since that is clearly not the case, it is clearly not a fact.

It is a fact that governments are made to have rules we can all abide by, these rules are made to benifit the people. It has been done through taxing mostly, and these rules evolve over time, with time. People are given more rights as time progresses, because the need for them arise. So, yes, they have done this in one form or another since the dawn of time. A minimum wage is just part of this, when the need for one arose it was the governments job to make it work.

[Machismo]

Here's a hint: even if they choose not to, there's always a violent uprising by the middle and lower classes at some point.

Source: all throughout history.

So, you claim that it's a fact, but now you want to backpedal? Got it.

If you say it's the job of government to do that, and there are examples of governments that do not do that, then you cannot state it as a fact. Now, you can say that you believe government should do those things, but once again, that makes it your opinion.

[Deleted]

I would argue the vast majority of people who toil and labour are going nowhere. The jobs the poor work are incredibly taxing to ones physical and mental health and they work long hours, sometimes more than just the one. And I can rest assured, that in their entire lives, they will likely never be worth more than the horse I ride for idle amusement, for which I own purely by the happy fortune of being born to the right parents.

Oh dont get me wrong, being lucky isn't a bad thing at all. Its just that being lucky should not be the basis on weather your life is shit or not.

[Machismo]

Not if they hold their livelihoods on ransom to begin with.

It's like saying slaveowners need their slaves to survive, which is essentially the concept in play here.

Slavery was not a voluntary agreement between two willing entities.

[Theodarzna]

Not at all. I see no reason to involve government where it is not actually needed. Having little to negotiate with is not the fault of the other side of the table. Should I run to the government if I spend too much on a car?

Should you? No, Will you? Probably.

Its called the weed of influence. The wealthy are the donors, or are the politicians. They hang out together, they went to the same schools. They are frat and sorority mates, they are classmates, they are friends at the golf course. These are their friends, the people they go on vacation with. Influence grows like a weed.

[Felya]

Doesn't a business need labor to survive?

Is this a joke? No, a business depends on the consumer to survive. Also, conflating the survival of a business versus survival of a human being, is pretty fucked up.

[Theodarzna]

Slavery was not a voluntary agreement between two willing entities.

Neither is Employment in any practical sense. Since its effectively illegal to do the alternatives.

[Machismo]

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays

Article 9;

Article 9
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

Article 11;

Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ges/CESCR.aspx

Take particular notes of 7(a), and 11(1).

That's the basics of international human rights law on this subject. You're right; we're using different terms. The difference is, mine are correct.

What you are describing is a subsistence wage. Let me know when you want to have employees get a subsistence wage.

Also, the existence of government intervention (which I oppose) is not the justification of government intervention.

[Felya]

Slavery was not a voluntary agreement between two willing entities.

Yeah, it was. The person selling the slave and the person buying the slave. The slave was property...

[Theodarzna]

Oh dont get me wrong, being lucky isn't a bad thing at all. Its just that being lucky should not be the basis on weather your life is shit or not.

Exactly. I fault the vanishing of the concept of compatriots, the old Brittonic word "Combrogi," comes to mind. The idea of "Fellow Countrymen." The more countries drink the communion wine of Free Markets and Neo-Liberalism, the less they seem to have any sense of "Combrogi." If people in an area can't be counted on to look after each other than there really isn't a nation or a country really IMHO.

[Machismo]

Neither is Employment in any practical sense. Since its effectively illegal to do the alternatives.

Employment is definitely voluntary. At no point did a man with a gun threaten to shoot me if I did not agree to work for my employer. You guys are the ones who want to bring the guys with the guns to the table.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it was. The person selling the slave and the person buying the slave. The slave was property...

Then there were three entities, and one of them was certainly unwilling.

[Felya]

What you are describing is a subsistence wage. Let me know when you want to have employees get a subsistence wage.

Also, the existence of government intervention (which I oppose) is not the justification of government intervention.

What's the differance between minimum wage and a subsistence wage?

[Theodarzna]

Employment is definitely voluntary. At no point did a man with a gun threaten to shoot me if I did not agree to work for my employer. You guys are the ones who want to bring the guys with the guns to the table.

It absolutely isn't. If I control if you get to eat or not, and command you to say put my bloody used tampon in your mouth and hold it there all day, simply because I'd find it funny, or I offer you the option of starving, or MAYBE you find another sick twisted person with some other insane thing to make you do in order to eat, ALSO its illegal for you to grow your own wheat, well.... do you have a practical choice?