Page 64 of 67 FirstFirst ...
14
54
62
63
64
65
66
... LastLast
  1. #1261
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    "Businesses agreed to abide by the laws of the land thus there is no harm." seems to have stumped the anarchist.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  2. #1262
    The question of wages seems off, I've never been one that has been concerned about the question "what is a fair wage" because that differs so greatly. What matters much more is what is the job worth? Everything can be quantified to a dollar amount. If it's cheaper to replace bank tellers with ATM's and IT staff writing a mobile app who can serve 1,000x more people for less cost, even if the teller is only making $12.00/hour, then that job isn't worth $12.00/hour regardless if it's a fair wage or not. Businesses will just replace those jobs with cheaper solutions. Why have 15 tellers in 3 branches when you can have 3 people in an IT staff automate it, it's an easy decision. And we're all to blame because I'd much rather use the mobile app and bank online than I would go to an actual bank. It's more convenient. It's odd how we want businesses to pay these jobs more now, but as a society we want more and more automation and apps and online access, which means less need for those people in the actual businesses. When those wages are lower because they aren't worth that much, it's all our fault.

    A fair wage is one that keeps jobs going, and that varies greatly in different fields and regions, so finding out the worth of the job is vastly more important than being obsessed with what the end wage is. And the emphasis on technology and automation is the biggest obstacle. There are a lot of stories of the guy in Detroit making oil filters for 30 years making $65,000/year being replaced by a machine that costs $250,000 and lasts 10 years, because it increases production and lowers the cost of the good and overhead. That job is therefore worth $25,000/year, not the $65,000 you were getting. That's just the math of it.

    And this really is a first world problem, compared to the rest of the globe, if you're making $34,000 a year you're in the top 1% of worldwide incomes. I think the average per-capita income in the US is just over $28,000/year, in the world is just under $3,000/year. So this is really the 1% complaining about the .01%

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
    "Businesses agreed to abide by the laws of the land thus there is no harm." seems to have stumped the anarchist.
    There is harm, laws make businesses leave and look for alternatives, which ends up usually harming workers. Business will relocate overseas or to a different state with more favorable laws, not even minimum wage laws, but maybe some better regulatory laws that lower other costs so they can afford to pay someone a little more. Or they will look for ways to automate and eliminate jobs. There is always a cost that will be balanced out at some point somewhere. If the business is going to stay open, it usually balances it onto someone else, otherwise it won't be in business long.

  3. #1263
    Quote Originally Posted by Unkempt View Post
    The question of wages seems off, I've never been one that has been concerned about the question "what is a fair wage" because that differs so greatly. What matters much more is what is the job worth? Everything can be quantified to a dollar amount. If it's cheaper to replace bank tellers with ATM's and IT staff writing a mobile app who can serve 1,000x more people for less cost, even if the teller is only making $12.00/hour, then that job isn't worth $12.00/hour regardless if it's a fair wage or not. Businesses will just replace those jobs with cheaper solutions. Why have 15 tellers in 3 branches when you can have 3 people in an IT staff automate it, it's an easy decision. And we're all to blame because I'd much rather use the mobile app and bank online than I would go to an actual bank. It's more convenient. It's odd how we want businesses to pay these jobs more now, but as a society we want more and more automation and apps and online access, which means less need for those people in the actual businesses. When those wages are lower because they aren't worth that much, it's all our fault.

    A fair wage is one that keeps jobs going, and that varies greatly in different fields and regions, so finding out the worth of the job is vastly more important than being obsessed with what the end wage is. And the emphasis on technology and automation is the biggest obstacle. There are a lot of stories of the guy in Detroit making oil filters for 30 years making $65,000/year being replaced by a machine that costs $250,000 and lasts 10 years, because it increases production and lowers the cost of the good and overhead. That job is therefore worth $25,000/year, not the $65,000 you were getting. That's just the math of it.

    And this really is a first world problem, compared to the rest of the globe, if you're making $34,000 a year you're in the top 1% of worldwide incomes. I think the average per-capita income in the US is just over $28,000/year, in the world is just under $3,000/year. So this is really the 1% complaining about the .01%

    - - - Updated - - -



    There is harm, laws make businesses leave and look for alternatives, which ends up usually harming workers. Business will relocate overseas or to a different state with more favorable laws, not even minimum wage laws, but maybe some better regulatory laws that lower other costs so they can afford to pay someone a little more. Or they will look for ways to automate and eliminate jobs. There is always a cost that will be balanced out at some point somewhere. If the business is going to stay open, it usually balances it onto someone else, otherwise it won't be in business long.
    This is going to happen regardless of wages. So long as technology improves, automation will outpace human labor in cost efficiency. Keeping human labor costs down to save jobs is not a long-term solution.

  4. #1264
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Unkempt View Post
    There is harm, laws make businesses leave and look for alternatives, which ends up usually harming workers. Business will relocate overseas or to a different state with more favorable laws, not even minimum wage laws, but maybe some better regulatory laws that lower other costs so they can afford to pay someone a little more. Or they will look for ways to automate and eliminate jobs. There is always a cost that will be balanced out at some point somewhere. If the business is going to stay open, it usually balances it onto someone else, otherwise it won't be in business long.
    And yet I haven't mentioned anything about these other laws, just talking about minimum wage, which itself does far more good than any harm.

    People do like to claim that if we push min wage up to $15/hr that businesses will suddenly rush to replace those workers, but that's not happening. The jobs being replaced are middle class jobs. They're the ones the companies spend the most money on. The priority is higher up on replacing higher paid people. Plus it's easier to replace those people, since a lot of the time all it requires is getting a programmer to write a program that does their job for them. For most minimum wage jobs, not only do you need software, but advanced robotics since most minimum wage jobs involve lots of movement and mechanical labor. Robots are expensive as hell.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  5. #1265
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by zEmini View Post
    Does wealth inequality include illegals? I am curious what the difference is if we only compare it with actual citizens.
    It does not, which is why it's hilarious (but no, rather sad) that we're at comparable levels of wealth inequality to Ancien Regime France.

  6. #1266
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A minimum wage is unnecessary. It's not based on basic economic principles, but is a means by wish to unbalance the playing field. It is an artificial intervention that is not needed.

    It is still above the historical average, which means it's keeping up with inflation. It's simply not as high as it's ever been, which is perfectly fine.
    Heheh, not needed by CEOs, sure.

    Why don't you ask people who are on minimum wage if they support removing it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  7. #1267
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And as I've said before, I have no problem with unions. I have an issue with government getting involved. I think unions are good at threatening strikes and boycotts, it's a very effective negotiating tool.

    They are not equal in enforcement, since one is a legal authority over all people in that area. If you want unions to replace the government in negotiations, I'm all for it.

    If you claim forcing them to pay a "living wage" is not harm, then at what point exactly does forcing them to pay become harmful? I think you and I would both agree that forcing a company to pay $1000 an hour is harmful. So, where exactly is that line, and how did you come to that answer?
    As far as the first point, using unions is fine and all until we reach the point we have, where if a store decides to unionize, the store just replaces the whole staff or just closes the doors and re-opens a new store somewhere else. Because in the long run, it's cheaper for a business to do that and avoid unions and instead find people so desperate for work they won't risk losing their jobs.

    As far as the point that giving people a living wage isn't harmful. The number is X, where X= A living wage. Regardless of what it is. A business can raise prices and lower spoilage to make up for the change in prices, what can a person do to make more money without colluding with a business? The power of a business staying afloat rests solely on the business owners, if McDonalds is forced to pay all their workers $1000/hr, they can just raise the price of the dollar menu to be the hundred dollar menu and the problem is solved. In that respect, small increases actually hurt a business worse, because it is harder in society to adjust prices by small amounts and still get people to buy your product than it is to drastically change it and let people adjust to a new system altogether.

    If that isn't a good enough answer for you then I am uncertain what is. Money put out by the company into the workforce, and when the workforce has that money, they can raise prices so that their income is higher, and people can afford those higher prices because they are getting paid more money. It's the circle of economics.

  8. #1268
    If a business cannot afford to do business safely by following OSHA, DOT & EPA regulations, then it is either not a viable business or is poorly run.

    Likewise, if a business cannot afford to do business and pay it's employees a fair wage, then it is either not a viable business or is poorly run.

    I don't see how either of those are evil, crazy or a punishment.
    Last edited by Bodakane; 2016-06-25 at 10:39 AM.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  9. #1269
    If a business...refuses to do business because it doesn't want to follow the rules and as a result closes down...another will take its place that will follow the rules.

  10. #1270
    Deleted
    Wealth inequality is a good thing. Why should working citizens be forced to slave away the majority of their working hours to benefit milions of plebs who are to stupid and degenerate to hold down even the most basic jobs? How many of the "muh poor 50%" even work at all?

  11. #1271
    Quote Originally Posted by LLspy View Post
    Wealth inequality is a good thing. Why should working citizens be forced to slave away the majority of their working hours to benefit milions of plebs who are to stupid and degenerate to hold down even the most basic jobs? How many of the "muh poor 50%" even work at all?
    Yes, most people agree that a healthy economy has wealth differences. What is being said and what is fact, is that the percentages that the current gap are at are unhealthy for good economy and frankly....not right.

    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  12. #1272
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatfish View Post
    As far as the first point, using unions is fine and all until we reach the point we have, where if a store decides to unionize, the store just replaces the whole staff or just closes the doors and re-opens a new store somewhere else. Because in the long run, it's cheaper for a business to do that and avoid unions and instead find people so desperate for work they won't risk losing their jobs.

    As far as the point that giving people a living wage isn't harmful. The number is X, where X= A living wage. Regardless of what it is. A business can raise prices and lower spoilage to make up for the change in prices, what can a person do to make more money without colluding with a business? The power of a business staying afloat rests solely on the business owners, if McDonalds is forced to pay all their workers $1000/hr, they can just raise the price of the dollar menu to be the hundred dollar menu and the problem is solved. In that respect, small increases actually hurt a business worse, because it is harder in society to adjust prices by small amounts and still get people to buy your product than it is to drastically change it and let people adjust to a new system altogether.

    If that isn't a good enough answer for you then I am uncertain what is. Money put out by the company into the workforce, and when the workforce has that money, they can raise prices so that their income is higher, and people can afford those higher prices because they are getting paid more money. It's the circle of economics.
    If people are free to unionize, a store must be free to oppose them.

    it is not harder to raise a price by a small amount, that is the natural flow of inflation. The problem with your attempt at math, is that you are pointing to the wrong target when trying to address harm. That's my entire point. People say it's not harmful, but only discuss the living wage and its recipients. There's no proper calculation as addressed to the actual "victim." They are basing harm on who is receiving the money, not from whom you are taking it. That is precisely why I brought up the entire issue of $1000 an hour, to show the basis of harm is not being addressed in the slightest, because people are pretending it does not exist.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Heheh, not needed by CEOs, sure.

    Why don't you ask people who are on minimum wage if they support removing it?
    It's not needed at all. Some countries do not have a minimum wage, and they do perfectly fine.

    I have no need to ask everyone if they want to remove it, because a simple majority is easily capable of oppression. Should we have left slavery, segregation, and and the ban on gay marriage up to the people who wanted it in place?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    No, it's not their fault that reality is the way it is. But it is damaging to people and to society to let them capitalize off of that dynamic. Which will happen without interference. Businesses care about themselves and their profits, not necessarily society as a whole. That isn't a criticism- I expect that of businesses. It is perfectly clear though that a counterbalance is needed for the betterment of society. Someone has to make sure that businesses (as well as individuals) aren't being destructive to society. That's why we have laws to begin with.

    - - - Updated - - -



    50% of Americans make less than $30,000/year. The inequality is staggering either way.
    Which is one of my points. We are choosing to punish people who have not caused the actual harm.

    Now, if we are going to punish them for capitalizing off of it, then you should also punish people who buy foreclosed homes, pawn shops for buying things from people who are broke, anyone who makes two car dealerships compete against each other, or every person who shops at a store holding a liquidation sale to stay open.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    If a business cannot afford to do business safely by following OSHA, DOT & EPA regulations, then it is either not a viable business or is poorly run.

    Likewise, if a business cannot afford to do business and pay it's employees a fair wage, then it is either not a viable business or is poorly run.

    I don't see how either of those are evil, crazy or a punishment.
    If the restriction is unnecessary, it is a punishment. It's an undue burden on that business. Besides, the basic fundamentals of economics dictate what is a fair wage. That doesn't see to be good enough for some.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    If a business...refuses to do business because it doesn't want to follow the rules and as a result closes down...another will take its place that will follow the rules.
    The existence of the rules is not a justification for the rules.

  13. #1273
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not needed at all. Some countries do not have a minimum wage, and they do perfectly fine.
    You mean like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden? Are you saying we should be more like them?

    Also, i ask again, when have US businesses done the right thing by their workers overall (or anyone else but their shareholders) without government stepping in?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    If the restriction is unnecessary, it is a punishment. It's an undue burden on that business. Besides, the basic fundamentals of economics dictate what is a fair wage. That doesn't see to be good enough for some.
    No its not. Look I show businesses how to comply with OSHA, EPA & DOT regulations. They almost always think they are unnecessary....until an employee dies or there's a fire or a customer gets injured....etc.

    If only there was a way to have a group of people come together and set up standards that all businesses must comply with since all businesses will have different ideas of what is and isn't justified.....
    Last edited by Bodakane; 2016-06-25 at 11:21 AM.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  14. #1274
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    You mean like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden? Are you saying we should be more like them?

    Also, i ask again, when have US businesses done the right thing by their workers overall (or anyone else but their shareholders) without government stepping in?

    - - - Updated - - -



    No its not. Look I show businesses how to comply with OSHA, EPA & DOT regulations. They almost always think they are unnecessary....until an employee dies or there's a fire or a customer gets injured....etc.

    If only there was a way to have a group of people come together and set up standards that all businesses must comply with since all businesses will have different ideas of what is and isn't justified.....
    It's not the job of a business to "do right" by their workers. They are beholden to their shareholders.

    If there's a restriction of an action which does not cause harm, then it is inherently unnecessary. Then you go from businesses oppressing people, to people oppressing businesses.

  15. #1275
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not the job of a business to "do right" by their workers. They are beholden to their shareholders.

    If there's a restriction of an action which does not cause harm, then it is inherently unnecessary. Then you go from businesses oppressing people, to people oppressing businesses.
    You ignored literally every point made and regurgitated Atlas Shrugged.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  16. #1276
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not the job of a business to "do right" by their workers. They are beholden to their shareholders.

    If there's a restriction of an action which does not cause harm, then it is inherently unnecessary. Then you go from businesses oppressing people, to people oppressing businesses.
    No regulation is inherently unnecessary. (Corporatist bullshit line)

    Track all regulation back to how it originated and you'll likely find dead bodies.

    And if businesses refuse to follow the rules then yes, by all means they not only deserve "oppression," but to be condemned and shut down.

    Another business will take its place.

  17. #1277
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    You ignored literally every point made and regurgitated Atlas Shrugged.
    I didn't ignore anything. We've already covered unions multiple times in this thread, I fully support them.

    You claim that all those restrictions are necessary, but I disagree. It is entirely unnecessary, and therefore oppressive, to restrict any action which does not create a victim.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    No regulation is inherently unnecessary. (Corporatist bullshit line)

    Track all regulation back to how it originated and you'll likely find dead bodies.

    And if businesses refuse to follow the rules then yes, by all means they not only deserve "oppression," but to be condemned and shut down.

    Another business will take its place.
    The existence of a regulation is not a justification of it. You do realize, that many of those regulations were put in place by corporations in order to limit and inhibit competition. That's how corporatism often works. Congratulations, you just defended corporatism.

    Yes, these restrictions are absolutely necessary...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ridic...rnment-2010-11
    Last edited by Machismo; 2016-06-25 at 12:06 PM.

  18. #1278
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I didn't ignore anything. We've already covered unions multiple times in this thread, I fully support them.

    You claim that all those restrictions are necessary, but I disagree. It is entirely unnecessary, and therefore oppressive, to restrict any action which does not create a victim.
    You did in fact ignore literally everything said in my two posts you quoted.

    You ignored this:
    You mean like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden? Are you saying we should be more like them?
    This:
    Also, i ask again, when have US businesses done the right thing by their workers overall (or anyone else but their shareholders) without government stepping in?
    And this:
    No its not. Look I show businesses how to comply with OSHA, EPA & DOT regulations. They almost always think they are unnecessary....until an employee dies or there's a fire or a customer gets injured....etc.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  19. #1279
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    You did in fact ignore literally everything said in my two posts you quoted.

    You ignored this:


    This:


    And this:
    And I said that a business does not have to "do right" by its employees, whatever the fuck that's even supposed to mean.

    I support countries that do not have a minimum wage.

    And I did address the last part when I said that any restriction of an action that does not create a victim is oppressive, and inherently unnecessary.

  20. #1280
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And I said that a business does not have to "do right" by its employees, whatever the fuck that's even supposed to mean.

    I support countries that do not have a minimum wage.

    And I did address the last part when I said that any restriction of an action that does not create a victim is oppressive, and inherently unnecessary.
    Yes businesses do have an obligation to their employees. That has been proven time and again, with everything from insurance to breaks to anti discrimination, etc.

    Then you support those mostly socialist places?

    Define what you mean by victim, because working a job and not making a minimum wage makes that worker a victim.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •