"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Jtbrig7390]

I disagree, but we've already established that.

You disagree that if you don't eat or get the meds/healthcare you need you will die?

What reality do you live in?

People work salve wages because they don't have any other choice because the other "choice" is death. Unless you can prove that eating isn't required to live..

[kamuimac]

Pay teachers shit, get shit teachers. If you ostensibly give a shit about the value of education then you should be prioritizing getting good teachers, so that means paying them well.

i do agree that teachers should earn more - thats why people should understand the value of taxes - and that taxes shouldnt be vasted on people who leech on society only used exackly for purpose like healthcare/education

at the same time it shouldnt be just rising wages for sake of rising wages only for example they should tie rise of teachers wage to quaterly/yearly evaluation of their jobs and to resoults that kids achieve on tests (which should be standardised )

if teacher fails at any of those he should be fired / replaced or have his pay cut untill het gets get resoults .

it can be easily achieved by dividing their pay into several parts - base which is low and bonuses depended on evaluation/resoults.

only then rising their wages would make sense and it would be tied to overall improvement of teaching systems.

thing is - most teachers would never agree with that system - as most of them are mediocre at best and they know they dont deserve even those money that they are already making atm.

[Elegiac]

i do agree that teachers should earn more

Which is funny, because I'm pretty sure you said the exact opposite in the previous post:

thats what normal people do. if they are uncomfortable with the level they live on they either work more / switch jobs

The fact you can't keep your argument consistent is a pretty fair indicator your position is a nonsense one.

at the same time it shouldnt be just rising wages for sake of rising wages

Strawman. No one's arguing for this.

or example they should tie rise of teachers wage to quaterly/yearly evaluation of their jobs

Performance reviews are already standard.

and to resoults that kids achieve on tests (which should be standardised )

No they shouldn't. This only teaches kids to be good at taking tests, not actually understanding the material.

if teacher fails at any of those he should be fired / replaced or have his pay cut untill het gets get resoults

Results which are based on an entirely arbitrary set of criteria and have no actual relation to whether or not the students in their care are actually learning and understanding the material - tests are not indicative of that, as said.

it can be easily achieved by dividing their pay into several parts - base which is low[ and bonuses depended on evaluation/resoults.

only then rising their wages would make sense and it would be tied to overall improvement of teaching systems.

Which would not improve because the low base pay would discourage qualified applicants.

thing is - most teachers would never agree with that system

Nor should they, because it's a shitty system coming from a place of complete ignorance about how education works. Lol.

as most of them are mediocre at best

Citation needed.

[Machismo]

If he said one thing in the past and a different thing today then the current argument takes priority. We live in the present, that is what matters.

Also why do you make that sound like a bad thing? People gain wisdom as they get older, it's a good thing.

Nope, because he went back and forth, he's a proven liar.

You can keep defending trolling and hypocrisy all you like.

[Katchii]

You disagree that if you don't eat or get the meds/healthcare you need you will die?

What reality do you live in?

People work salve wages because they don't have any other choice because the other "choice" is death. Unless you can prove that eating isn't required to live..

I disagree with the assertion that there is no choice involved in the situation, that's all. And I've said that multiple times.

[Jtbrig7390]

I disagree with the assertion that there is no choice involved in the situation, that's all. And I've said that multiple times.

So you see death as a choice, Kinda fucked up and says a lot about you.

[Katchii]

So you see death as a choice, Kinda fucked up and says a lot about you.

Read the rest of my posts, and all the words in them, if you actually want to see my thoughts. I've already expressed them multiple times so I'm not going to rehash them again.

[Twdft]

Read the rest of my posts, and all the words in them, if you actually want to see my thoughts. I've already expressed them multiple times so I'm not going to rehash them again.

I guess you don't know a single person who at some point in their life didn't have enough money to buy food. You can't even imagine what that is like.

[Katchii]

I guess you don't know a single person who at some point in their life didn't have enough money to buy food. You can't even imagine what that is like.

I have met, known and personally helped several actually. And my stance remains the same, specifically BECAUSE I know first hand what options are available for people in these situations. The choice is NOT "take this job or die." I'll accept that in these kinds of situations it's likely "take this job or have a hard time for who knows how long" but those are not remotely the same thing.

Do their situations suck? Yes. My view on the matter doesn't change that...at all. But do I want to fix their situation? Absolutely!

Literally the only thing people seem to be disagreeing with me on is whether there is choice involved. We seem to align on everything else.

[Shadowferal]

So you see death as a choice, Kinda fucked up and says a lot about you.

His heart seems to be in the right place.
Just lacks the clarity that really crappy experiences bring.

[Glorious Leader]

I have met, known and personally helped several actually. And my stance remains the same, specifically BECAUSE I know first hand what options are available for people in these situations. The choice is NOT "take this job or die." I'll accept that in these kinds of situations it's likely "take this job or have a hard time for who knows how long" but those are not remotely the same thing.

Do their situations suck? Yes. My view on the matter doesn't change that...at all. But do I want to fix their situation? Absolutely!

Literally the only thing people seem to be disagreeing with me on is whether there is choice involved. We seem to align on everything else.

Destitution, emisseration, homelessness,poverty, malnutrition (never mind starvation) are more than just "having a hard time"

[Katchii]

Destitution, emisseration, homelessness,poverty, malnutrition (never mind starvation) are more than just "having a hard time"

And what part of "I want to fix this" are you not understanding?

[Egomaniac]

And what part of "I want to fix this" are you not understanding?

Probably the part where you are like "Well, they had a choice..."

[Katchii]

Probably the part where you are like "Well, they had a choice..."

The person went looking for a job, picked (aka chose) the ones they want to apply for, interviewed for them (probably), and was ultimately offered a job and CHOSE to take it. They would not have the job unless they chose to do all (or most) of those things. That is a fact. I am not denying the horrible circumstances that forced them into that situation, and never have.

I'm seriously not understanding why accepting that the above circumstances as fact is such a horrible thing, it does not deny that their situation is horrible and needs fixing.

Why are you so fixated on this?

[Endus]

The person went looking for a job, picked (aka chose) the ones they want to apply for, interviewed for them (probably), and was ultimately offered a job and CHOSE to take it. They would not have the job unless they chose to do all (or most) of those things. That is a fact. I am not denying the horrible circumstances that forced them into that situation, and never have.

I'm seriously not understanding why accepting that the above circumstances as fact is such a horrible thing, it does not deny that their situation is horrible and needs fixing.

Why are you so fixated on this?

Because it isn't a free choice. It's like saying someone has a "choice" when someone holds a gun to their head and makes them sign a contract. Duress is generally considered to nullify the validity of any contract, legally speaking, unless it's an employment contract, that's just how all employment contracts work and is the basis of the entire economic system don't pay attention to the slaver behind the curtain.

Saying they got to pick what jobs they applied for is like saying a slave got to pick if they were a field slave or a mine slave. That's not a real choice. "Not be a slave" isn't on their list of options.

[Katchii]

Because it isn't a free choice.

Technically, it is. Them being in a dire situation where they absolutely need money doesn't mean their free will is gone. They're free to make whatever choice they have available to them, just like anyone else. I 100% acknowledge that their list of choices is very limited compared to others, though.

But other "choices" do exist besides "get a job" to make money. Some may not be legal, and some are shall I say...not savory, but that doesn't mean people don't make that choice. Don't @ me here, you know as well as I do that people make these decisions. Yes, I 1000% agree they shouldn't have to make these decisions which is why I want to fix things.

Acting like getting a job in this situation is an automatic thing and the ONLY choice is denying reality.

It's like saying someone has a "choice" when someone holds a gun to their head and makes them sign a contract. Duress is generally considered to nullify the validity of any contract, legally speaking, unless it's an employment contract, that's just how all employment contracts work and is the basis of the entire economic system don't pay attention to the slaver behind the curtain.

Again with this gun analogy.

As I said before, if "take this job or die" were literally the ONLY options. I'd agree. But that is not the case.

My point is, them getting a job is not a foregone conclusion. It's not automatic. Being in this situation does not automatically mean they get a minimum wage job that barely pays the bills. They HAD to chose to go do all those things I talked about before to get the job.

It being an easy choice because their situation is so bad does not remove their free will and the fact that choices were made.

Saying they got to pick what jobs they applied for is like saying a slave got to pick if they were a field slave or a mine slave. That's not a real choice. "Not be a slave" isn't on their list of options.

Even upper middle class people are slaves to their debts and bills and whatnot. They have to work too. There aren't very many people where the choice "not be a slave" is actually a viable option.

You're a "Teacher" slave (IIRC about your profession, correct me if I'm wrong). You have bills to pay, right? You couldn't stop working completely and be able to live comfortably for long (assumption, as most people can't, but I don't know your personal situation). If you stopped working eventually you'd be in a similar situation where you had to figure out where your next meal was coming from and when or if you could pay the bills. The difference is that your professional background expands your potential choices for employment when you needed to find it in order to get more money to pay the bills.

The only people not slaves to that situation (ie having to work to pay for their bills) are those so rich they have more money than they know what to do with (which includes those born into it), or those living completely off the grid somewhere...but even they are slaves to their own needs and are required to make certain decisions about how to survive. They can't just decide not to go hunting/gathering, or not to build a shelter, etc...

Everyone else has choices to make about how they're going to pay their bills. Those at the bottom also have the added misfortune of even after slaving away, possibly not having enough to pay their bills, buy food, etc...

Those at the bottom also admittedly don't get all the perks that those in upper classes have while dealing with those same issues/ choices (all the creature comforts) but that doesn't mean they aren't slaves, the upper classes are more comfortable, better rewarded slaves (aside from the ultra rich, which would be like the ruling class that owns the slaves in this analogy).

Which is why the fix is to provide EVERYONE the basic needs so everyone is a "comfortable slave." Because as long as money is a requirement for surviving, EVERYONE is a slave to it.

[Santti]

snip

This is really asinine. What the hell is the point of all this "Actually, you still have a choice!" bullshit? Yeah, tell that to the guy who is offered the choice between homelessness/starvation and picking the jobs that pay like shit, and being barely able to sustain themselves. I'm sure he will feel much better for being told that.

Stop being a smartass over this.

[Katchii]

This is really asinine. What the hell is the point of all this "Actually, you still have a choice!" bullshit? Yeah, tell that to the guy who is offered the choice between homelessness/starvation and picking the jobs that pay like shit, and being barely able to sustain themselves. I'm sure he will feel much better for being told that.

Stop being a smartass over this.

You're never going to convince me that there are literally no choices involved here. I have never once argued that they aren't unfair, unbalanced choices, but they ARE choices. The person involved doesn't just automatically end up with the job because of their situation. They have to DO something to get that job, ANY job. That means they had to choose something.

Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it such a horrible thing to accept that, as easy and unfair of a choice as it is, it is still a choice?

[Endus]

You're never going to convince me that there are literally no choices involved here. I have never once argued that they aren't unfair, unbalanced choices, but they ARE choices. The person involved doesn't just automatically end up with the job because of their situation. They have to DO something to get that job, ANY job. That means they had to choose something.

Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it such a horrible thing to accept that, as easy and unfair of a choice as it is, it is still a choice?

Because it's playing games. When we talk about choices, we mean meaningful choices. Giving a death-row inmate a "choice" of the firing squad or the gallows is not really a meaningful choice; the meaningful choice, about whether he can continue to live or not, has already been taken from him. Claiming it's his choice to die when he's only choosing the means of his death is not justifiable.

Similarly, with jobs, you're so focused on people's ability to choose which shitty job they take that you never get around to the meaningful choice; whether they should be taking a shitty job at all.

Would you rather stick your hand in the blender, or the meat grinder? Or maybe a pot of boiling oil is more to your taste? What's that, you don't want to stick your hand in any of these? That's not your choice, you only get to pick how your hand is ruined.

See the problem, yet?

[Shadowferal]

Hobson's choice

1 : an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative
2 : the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives