"Businesses agreed to abide by the laws of the land thus there is no harm." seems to have stumped the anarchist.
"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?!"
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.
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?!"
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 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
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.
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?
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
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 - - -
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 - - -
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 - - -
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 - - -
The existence of the rules is not a justification for the rules.
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.....
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
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.
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 - - -
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.
You did in fact ignore literally everything said in my two posts you quoted.
You ignored this:
This:You mean like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden? Are you saying we should be more like them?
And 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?
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
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