Can There Be A Compromise on Minimum Wage?

[gnarlylove]

I never meant to attack human beings as evil, nor did I intend to make you feel accused, I was attempting to challenge your central beliefs about the nature of reality--and that can tend to have a piquant or bitting quality that is taken personal. For that I apologize but given you only want to "win" a debate, I doubt you care much about human relations.

Regardless, my point is the very nature of our systems of survival breed exploitation and parasitism. Wage labor is dependent on a fundamental disconnect between the surplus of production and the laborer's pay. Thus the working class must face this internal conflict in order to survive. Is this the only way society can operate? This is patently false. There are numerous other proposals.

But I don't know what you were saying. Selling me a bank account? Either we can discuss the facts and treat each other as peers or you can try to sell your ideas like I'm a customer. The fact is our systems serve a select few with unequaled excellence while leaving the rest out to dry. This is not a law of physics. It is a matter of policy and decisions and if you think society should serve to concentrate wealth, you must admit you can care less for democracy. For a democracy advocates the needs of the many.

 

[Andylusion]

I doubt you care much about human relations.

Wage labor is dependent on a fundamental disconnect between the surplus of production and the laborer's pay. Thus the working class must face this internal conflict in order to survive. Is this the only way society can operate? This is patently false. There are numerous other proposals.

But I don't know what you were saying. Selling me a bank account? Either we can discuss the facts and treat each other as peers or you can try to sell your ideas like I'm a customer. The fact is our systems serve a select few with unequaled excellence while leaving the rest out to dry. This is not a law of physics. It is a matter of policy and decisions and if you think society should serve to concentrate wealth, you must admit you can care less for democracy. For a democracy advocates the needs of the many.

If you mean human relations on a forum like this... no not much. If we were talking personally, that would be different. I'm never so much in-your-face in person.

Now back to the wages and such. Here's the problem. Are there economic systems, where labor can reap 100% of their work? Yes. Just go to the African tribal areas, or Jungles of South Central America.

But as Adam Smith pointed out, the lowest class of people in the Capitalist system, live a higher standard of living, than the Prince of tribal people.

There is no modern system that I am aware of, where people gain the full value of their labor, and have a wealthy society. Even Co-Ops here in the US, I have found, are subsidized by tax payers. So someone else has to have the wealth of their labor, taxed away, to pay for a Co-Op. Even within the Co-Op, the employee still loses their surplus to the Co-Op. Obviously, in Soviet Russia, and Pre-78 China, the same was true there as well.

So while you claim there are other systems, I'd sure like to actually see one, and how it works. If you have such an example, by all means tell me.

Back to the banks. You claimed that Financial institutions were parasites. Parasites, by their very nature, do not benefit people.

Do Financial institutions provide a benefit that has value to the public? Answer..... Yes.

If they did not, then people would not use them.

And while some do serve exclusively the elite class of people, the vast majority do not. You can say that a super wealthy individual benefits more from these financial institutions than say a lower-middle income worker earning $30,000 a year, but there are many times more people at that level than those at the top.

Combined, the financial institutions serve the lower and middle income, far more than the elite. Would you seriously deny that? Because you would lose that argument on an empirical level.

Take the oft cited, most hated group of money managers, the evil Hedge Funds. While there are some hedge funds that cater exclusively to the wealthy elite, most people don't know that the majority of hedge fund cater to Foundations, Endowments, Pensions, and even State Funds.

For example:

Ohio State University, has 1/4 of their endowments invested in Hedge Funds.

State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, has invested over $1.2 Billion dollars in hedge funds, which according to their latest statement, is now worth over $1.5 Billion market value. A 25% increase, not bad.

The YMCA, has nearly $9 Billion dollars of their foundation assets, tied up in Hedge Funds.

Now unless you think all of those organizations, as well as the millions of other similar organizations, are all benefiting the elite wealthy.... which you can't even attempt to argue that.... then clearly hedge funds are benefiting the lower and middle income people. The YMCA, Teacher retirement, OSU, all are using hedge funds, to benefit the so-called 'working class' people.

So back to my point. Your claim that financial institutions are all parasites, is just bogus. That is not a defensible statement.

 

[gnarlylove]

If you mean human relations on a forum like this... no not much. If we were talking personally, that would be different. I'm never so much in-your-face in person.

Thanks for the honesty. I know I started in your face responding to my own passions, which is normally and will be kept in check. Given we live less than 300 miles from each other, we could be a bit more considerate.

[/B]But as Adam Smith pointed out, the lowest class of people in the Capitalist system, live a higher standard of living, than the Prince of tribal people.

Smith had a lot more to criticize about the division of labor too. How it makes people stupid and incapable. It isn't black and white. People are not simply better off under wage labor. There are many factors you are not considering, and these are called externalities. These costs are not calculated yet are very real. I know you don't think they are real since the only reality you consider is the narrow definition given by economics.

So while you claim there are other systems, I'd sure like to actually see one, and how it works. If you have such an example, by all means tell me.

It's funny how you think if other systems existed, that they would necessarily have been tried. What do you think the cold war was a pretext for? The US was devastating any independent development. In fact, when such a system develops, the US responds by funding terrorism of the local population.

But when you look at how well nations are doing like Chile, who is independent, along with all the socialist countries, we can see a glimor of hope. Where re-distribution is a concern not just for the wealthy but also for the working class where education and health and the like are prioritized. In the US inequality is growing faster than the population is. But who cares when corporate profits are soaring for the last 3 decades. Certainly not our policy makers.

Back to the banks. You claimed that Financial institutions were parasites. Parasites, by their very nature, do not benefit people.

Do Financial institutions provide a benefit that has value to the public? Answer..... Yes.

If they did not, then people would not use them.

This is extremely deficient logic. The premise that isn't mentioned but is required for your argument to work is, "When people use things it means it provides value."

I can think of hundreds of cases where the use of something has been for the harm of a group or society. There is plenty of scholarly work on this. Take Amy Chua's "World on Fire" where she analyzes the various market systems. She finds that in every case the small minority dominates the majority of the population. This means that the wealth being generated by society is not being shared by society but rather flows upward to 5-15% of the population.

The fact that financial services provides people with money by making calculated risks does not mean anything productive happens. In fact, the bail out of 7.7 trillion speaks for itself. The harm to society is extremely evident.

Sure, financial institutions are not parasites to those who use them. But to those who do not use them, a majority of the population, suffers from their regular cycle of crisis that has happened since the 70s. The evidence is there if you care to look but I know this runs counter to your whole existence so for you to admit that harmful transactions exudes from financial institutions is a challenge to your existence. I'm sorry you are so entrenched in this view that you identify it as who you are.

You are right. Financial institutions are not harmful to you.

But to the rest of society suffers as a result of the prizes gained by a small minority of the population. You can list all the hedge fund investments you wish but that doesn't mean squat to the employees of YMCA, it means profits for the CEO and directors. Just because something is useful and valuable to you doesn't mean it is therefore useful to everyone.

 

[Andylusion]

If you mean human relations on a forum like this... no not much. If we were talking personally, that would be different. I'm never so much in-your-face in person.

Thanks for the honesty. I know I started in your face responding to my own passions, which is normally and will be kept in check. Given we live less than 300 miles from each other, we could be a bit more considerate.

Dude, you are the one who was insulting me on this thread. Not me to you. Follow your own advice.

[/B]But as Adam Smith pointed out, the lowest class of people in the Capitalist system, live a higher standard of living, than the Prince of tribal people.

Smith had a lot more to criticize about the division of labor too. How it makes people stupid and incapable. It isn't black and white. People are not simply better off under wage labor. There are many factors you are not considering, and these are called externalities. These costs are not calculated yet are very real. I know you don't think they are real since the only reality you consider is the narrow definition given by economics.

Yet they are still better off. Yes, not having a division of labor, does make people, by necessity, more skilled in a diverse set of abilities. But again.... they are not better off.

That's exactly what Adam Smith said. Yes of course he had other criticism, and obviously there are trade offs for everything. But clearly this is the better trade off.

So while you claim there are other systems, I'd sure like to actually see one, and how it works. If you have such an example, by all means tell me.

It's funny how you think if other systems existed, that they would necessarily have been tried. What do you think the cold war was a pretext for? The US was devastating any independent development. In fact, when such a system develops, the US responds by funding terrorism of the local population.

But when you look at how well nations are doing like Chile, who is independent, along with all the socialist countries, we can see a glimor of hope. Where re-distribution is a concern not just for the wealthy but also for the working class where education and health and the like are prioritized. In the US inequality is growing faster than the population is. But who cares when corporate profits are soaring for the last 3 decades. Certainly not our policy makers.

That is simply not true. Just flat out, not true. North Korea was free to develop any way they wished, and we did not fund terrorism against them. China was free to develop any way they wished. Vietnam after we left, was free to develop any way they wished. We didn't fund terrorism on any of them. And there are hundreds of example.

Now did we intervene in some areas? Absolutely. Was that right? I would say in most situation, no it was not. But don't give me this crap that somehow your brilliant system would have existed. except the evil US stopped every single one of them on the entire planet, from existing. No, sorry, complete garbage.

And the fact you cite Chile, is proof your claim is garbage. Chile is a Capitalist based economy. Chile even has capitalist based school systems. The 'owners of production' are profiting off of their school system, and their school system is the best in Latin America. Proving once again, that socialism always fails, and capitalism always works.

In fact, Chile is number SEVEN on the economic freedom index. The US, is number 12. It is EASIER for a wealthy capitalist owner of production, to make profit in Chile, than in the US.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Back to the banks. You claimed that Financial institutions were parasites. Parasites, by their very nature, do not benefit people.

Do Financial institutions provide a benefit that has value to the public? Answer..... Yes.

If they did not, then people would not use them.

This is extremely deficient logic. The premise that isn't mentioned but is required for your argument to work is, "When people use things it means it provides value."

I can think of hundreds of cases where the use of something has been for the harm of a group or society. There is plenty of scholarly work on this. Take Amy Chua's "World on Fire" where she analyzes the various market systems. She finds that in every case the small minority dominates the majority of the population. This means that the wealth being generated by society is not being shared by society but rather flows upward to 5-15% of the population. (none of that even applies to the discussion)

The fact that financial services provides people with money by making calculated risks does not mean anything productive happens. In fact, the bail out of 7.7 trillion speaks for itself. The harm to society is extremely evident.

Sure, financial institutions are not parasites to those who use them. But to those who do not use them, a majority of the population, suffers from their regular cycle of crisis that has happened since the 70s. The evidence is there if you care to look but I know this runs counter to your whole existence so for you to admit that harmful transactions exudes from financial institutions is a challenge to your existence. I'm sorry you are so entrenched in this view that you identify it as who you are.

You are right. Financial institutions are not harmful to you.

But to the rest of society suffers as a result of the prizes gained by a small minority of the population. You can list all the hedge fund investments you wish but that doesn't mean squat to the employees of YMCA, it means profits for the CEO and directors. Just because something is useful and valuable to you doesn't mean it is therefore useful to everyone.

Yes, people use things when they have value. You don't have to use a bank. In fact, I know MANY people who don't have a bank account at all.

Yes, the bailout did harm society, which is why we on the right, were against it. It was not needed, nor required. It was socialism.

Again, Capitalist is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking. Loss encourages prudence. -Milton Friedman.

When you socialize the loss, that's not capitalism, and not what I advocate.

By not bailing out losses, you encourage financial institutions to make more prudent investments, that will benefit society. When you bailout losses, you encourage the same to make even more risky investments, because they know they will be bailed out.

Again, I just outlined how the majority of the population DOES use them. Most people do in fact use financial institutions.

Further, yes there has been a cycle since the 1970s, when government started regulating and pushing investment. That's not surprising to me.

I'm sorry you are so entrenched in this view that you refuse to identify it as beneficial to the majority of society that uses their services.

 

[OnePercenter]

According to the BLS there is only 3.5% of the workers making at or below minimum wage. For those over 25, the percentage falls to .8%. If minimum wage is raised to $10, it will not substantially lower the level of poverty nor will it substantial increase unemployment. It is nothing more than a political joust between the Right and Left. At some point there will be a compromise and both sides will return home proudly proclaiming their victory.

How many people do your percentages represent?

The data is gathered by BLS from the National Compensation Survey. Since it's a statistical sampling, it represents all wage earners.

National Compensation Survey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost Everything You Have Been Told About The Minimum Wage Is False - Forbes

The answer is 3.6 MILLION Americans make at or below the minimum wage.

 

[gnarlylove]

"We didn't fund terrorism on any of them. And there are hundreds of example."

There are not even that many countries on earth. Your exaggeration knows no limits.

I am not refusing to see the vast importance of financial instutions. It is about 70% of the economy. But why have wages stagnated or fell for the last 40 years among the general population?

Like I said, I admit fin. instit. are beneficial. I said it in my last post. You act like I didn't say it. But that's because those benefiting are a narrow bunch. Poverty is growing faster than the population. So you can keep thinking the only outcome if beneficent. Or you can take an honest look at both sides of the story. A narrow sector is benefiting enormously while Americans are picking up the tab, the various social costs that were made externalities by these institutions. Yep, that's a parasite for ya.

Do you think the environment is of any consideration? That's another huge externality that fin. is ignoring. Without water and food the masses will suffer and that's exactly what's going to happen unless we overturn these parasites--destroying the host which is literally our planet.

 

[Andylusion]

"We didn't fund terrorism on any of them. And there are hundreds of example."

There are not even that many countries on earth. Your exaggeration knows no limits.

Which doesn't change the point I made. There are dozens of examples of countries we did not prevent from developing in any method they choose. Those countries, following the ideology you are promoting on this thread, are all hellish places in this world.

The fact the only citation you could make, was a country that is even more Capitalist than our own, as an example of your system, proves you don't have a point.

I am not refusing to see the vast importance of financial instutions. It is about 70% of the economy. But why have wages stagnated or fell for the last 40 years among the general population?

Irrelevant. Two completely different topics. Further, the claim is false. Wages have not fallen.

All the claims that wages have fallen, center around "household income". Household income has fallen for several reasons. One of which is divorce. Divorce increased just as "household income" has fallen. This is completely logical, since you take one household with a higher income, and split it into two households with lower incomes.

Second, in times past, most college age students lived at home, and worked a job. That income would be counted towards the household income of their parents home. Today, most students move out into their own apartments, or dorms. This either creates a separate household with a very low income, and / or at a minimum it removes those wages from the household of their parents.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with banking. Your argument is a correlation equals causation argument, and it's wrong.

Like I said, I admit fin. instit. are beneficial. I said it in my last post. You act like I didn't say it. But that's because those benefiting are a narrow bunch.

Stop. Wrong. It doesn't benefit 'a narrow bunch'. It benefits hundreds of millions, and far more world wide. I gave you direct examples of financial institutions which are used to help the lower and middle income people throughout our country.

Nearly all colleges and universities, gain from management of their financial assets, which benefits the students.

Nearly all charitable foundations and organizations use financial asset management, to benefit the people they serve. United Way, American Red Cross, and hundreds of others.

You either accept that truth, are you are just being willfully ignorant, and intentionally denying indisputable truth. Until you post some direct evidence that Financial institutions do not benefit the vast majority of the public, then you are wasting your time spewing unsupportable claims. Either put up, or shut up.

The difference between you and me right now, is I can post you the links to financial reports, showing you the investments by organizations like the United Way
Financial Information | United Way
2012 Consolidated Financial Statements
Page 8, Investments, Custodial Funds, Truist Asset Management.

Which show directly there investments with financial institutions, that support those organizations which helps millions of people.

You on the other hand, have not, and will not, because you can not, support or prove your claim that Financial institutions only benefit the wealthy elite. All you have is someone somewhere said something. That's it. But the evidence is all against you, and you know it. Either accept it, or just keep spewing the same non-sense, and I'll keep calling it out for the nonsense it is. I can repeat how dumb your statements are, over and over, and post a new evidence each time. There are far more examples out there, than you have time to post empty replies.

Poverty is growing faster than the population. So you can keep thinking the only outcome if beneficent. Or you can take an honest look at both sides of the story. A narrow sector is benefiting enormously while Americans are picking up the tab, the various social costs that were made externalities by these institutions. Yep, that's a parasite for ya.

You keep making accusations, and correlations, without giving direct proof. Meanwhile there are thousands of foundations, and organizations, that use financial institutions to benefit even the impoverished.

Do you think the environment is of any consideration? That's another huge externality that fin. is ignoring. Without water and food the masses will suffer and that's exactly what's going to happen unless we overturn these parasites--destroying the host which is literally our planet.

Oh please. The countries that don't have owners of capital, or financial institutions, like North Korea, they have mass starvation. In Soviet Russia, they were EATING PEOPLE. Cannibalism was a huge problem.

You think the people of Venezuela are doing better, now that they can't even buy RICE to eat?

Haiti, is in absolute ruin, while the Dominican Republic is doing far better off. Which has the evil capitalists, the evil financial institutions? Dominican Republic.

You keep making up these completely bogus claims about the evils of Capitalism, and the evils of Financial institutions, and yet places that don't have them are so far worse off than anything in our country, or any other 1st world capitalist country, that it isn't even comparable.

Bad arguments. Complete fail.

You can keep spouting off stuff, and I'll just keep shoving real life evidence and example in your face. Claims and hearsay, are not a replacement for reality and evidence. No amount of "so-and-so said", over rides the devastation of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.

 

[gnarlylove]

"My arguments" are not mine. They are founded on the basis of research. You act like your empathic claims are true because you said it. We all know everyone is prone to error. Perhaps we are both in error.

Can you tell the difference between what your saying and that reality might be entirely different? In other words, do you admit it's possible be drawling erroneous conclusions?

I cannot find any evidence that you care much about this difference. At this point, debate becomes pointless. For some reason I knew you don't listen well to opposite viewpoints and yet I still engaged with you. The only way we could have productive discussion is if I admitted everything you say is the truth. But what's the point then? There still isn't one. I am well aware that it's natural to think you are right. But there is quite a difference between that and what you engage in. I fully admit I am fallible and am open to being wrong. Self-reflection and internal honesty are crucial for human interaction. If you fail to think you might be wrong, then you will only amplify those claims leading to more and more unfalsifiable claims.

I think you claim that financial institution bring only good to society is approaching this unfalsifiable status. You admit the bailout was decisive harm on society. But did you know it benefited the institutions that helped inflame the crisis? They became stronger in some respects and certainly bigger. So indeed, no matter what happens, there is a benefit from financial institutions, regardless of what's going on in society.

There is profit in time of crisis. That's because if your a CEO, you externalize the costs, and suddenly, poof, the costs disappear. But do the costs really disappear? I know you think they do and that means you are committed to avoiding thinking about a different perspective. Namely, the costs do not disappear but are transferred.

Every working class American inherently knows--they don't disappear--they are shifted on the public and the environment. Privatization does not reduces costs, instead it shifts the burden from internal to the company or system to outside it. Since you would never acknowledge this in a million years, it was pointless of me to tell you. It's not like financial institutions do not bring grave harm and systemic risk, you just refuse to think about this--and I've provided three renowned economists who say exactly what I am; namely that it's likely that overall, the net effect of financial institutions are harmful (meaning they do benefit but the benefit is overshadowed by the grave risk and loss that is inevitable when costs are externalized).

To cast your argument in a different light, its like your using an argument that was more like a tactic in the 80s and before. A rising tide lifts all boats. In your context this means financial institutions generate profit and this trickles down, lifting up society. First off, we all know it does not trickle, if it does anything at all. Wages have virtually stagnated or declined since the big trickle down days. But let's take the other side that says innovation benefits society. It does on the face value but does it really? There is quality observation that shows more consumer choice does not always imply better for consumers. (see http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice or his book, which I read.

But let's assume consumer choice does always benefit consumers, then we are still left with the problem:

A report published in January by the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights and the Center for Studies and Support for Local Development (CEADEL) offers a detailed case study of the corruption, abuse and shameless profiteering that often exemplify the global supply chain, demonstrating that globalization and "free trade" do not "lift all boats" but instead build more yachts for the 1%.

Here's the report: http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/document/1401-alianzaguatemala.pdf I'll be fair and over a link that argues your position: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-shapiro/advice-to-obama-at-g-20-s_b_181237.html
But keep in mind, this new report contradicts the claims made in the article that supports your views.

So the benefits of the wealthy do not simply benefit society. This as not an axiom like you keep repeating. Maybe the best we can do is say financial institutions bring grave harm and risk AS WELL AS stark benefits. That's the best compromise I can come up with. But like I said, those three renowned economists think there is greater harm than good produced--the net result.

 

[gnarlylove]

Steering it back to some semblance of minimum wage debate, I would like to comment that money should not be the only incentive to work. Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham. Human beings are by nature creative and expressive, those who love their work would do and and indeed do it even when they aren't being paid. So capitalism has missed out on developing full human potential by a massive scale. People could be productive just as easily without the money incentive, it's just a matter of what you like and what you do and beginning to think outside of the money-ist world and work era we live in.

 

[BillyZane]

Steering it back to some semblance of minimum wage debate, I would like to comment that money should not be the only incentive to work. Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham. Human beings are by nature creative and expressive, those who love their work would do and and indeed do it even when they aren't being paid. So capitalism has missed out on developing full human potential by a massive scale. People could be productive just as easily without the money incentive, it's just a matter of what you like and what you do and beginning to think outside of the money-ist world and work era we live in.

I don't think that is true for the average person. It MIGHT be true for the self employed, but who would put up with a boss and the garbage that comes with it if they weren't being compensated? To do so would be stupid.

 

[gnarlylove]

Capitalism has set it up that way. Life doesn't have to be an 8 hour shift or a 40 hour week. One doesn't need a boss or manager. Technology can be employed to empower the worker needing less or no supervision. Instead, advances in manufacturing were geared towards fragmenting the worker into an effective machine, dehumanizing him.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can organize plenty of other ways and still meet the needs of society. Unfortunately any attempt to do so has been crushed by US backed dictators or terrorists, thus we think it cannot be any other way. If one is serious. there are tons of work on what a society could look like that respected all human freedom and creativity, not just some.

 

[FA_Q2]

Steering it back to some semblance of minimum wage debate, I would like to comment that money should not be the only incentive to work. Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham. Human beings are by nature creative and expressive, those who love their work would do and and indeed do it even when they aren't being paid. So capitalism has missed out on developing full human potential by a massive scale. People could be productive just as easily without the money incentive, it's just a matter of what you like and what you do and beginning to think outside of the money-ist world and work era we live in.

I don't think that is true for the average person. It MIGHT be true for the self employed, but who would put up with a boss and the garbage that comes with it if they weren't being compensated? To do so would be stupid.

That takes the standard though and attempts to fit it into a non-paying model. Of course it does not makes sense. Gnarly is wrong though – the supposition that the economy does not utilize non-paying labor is completely incorrect. There are many enormously successful instances of getting people to work entirely for free. Wiki is an example. They succeed with a labor force that is almost entirely free for them to draw on. Many games operate under that same principal as well. Look at anything Bethsaida produces – they pay people to code the core of the game but the VAST majority of content is actually produced after the fact. Completely for free by the community.

Free labor, in contrast to your post, does not have people that ‘deal with a boss’ or any of the other ‘drudgery’ of a common job. It is done at will. The key is, of course, finding something to motivate people other than wealth. It seems that the most common motivator is exposure.

 

[gnarlylove]

FAQ always sure to take a stab at his enemies despite agreeing with them. I never even made that claim, but I'd like to see him quote me on that very point. It's because I never made such a statement.

And in fact I am well aware that people work for all sorts of reasons beyond monied incentives. Just because one is being paid does not exclude other incentives from playing a role. But FAQ could care less what I say, he knows what's best for me to say so he can tear down the straw man. Let's give a round of applause for FAQ in deceiving himself.

 

[FA_Q2]

FAQ always sure to take a stab at his enemies despite agreeing with them. I never even made that claim, but I'd like to see him quote me on that very point. It's because I never made such a statement.

And in fact I am well aware that people work for all sorts of reasons beyond monied incentives. Just because one is being paid does not exclude other incentives from playing a role. But FAQ could care less what I say, he knows what's best for me to say so he can tear down the straw man. Let's give a round of applause for FAQ in deceiving himself.

Here is your quote.

Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham.

Basically stating that we have not utilized the free to work concept when in fact we have. Capitalism has not fought against such a concept in any way shape or form and even encouraged the successful models that we see now. In an attempt to do nothing but demonize, you claim the exact opposite. Further, I have never claimed anyone here an 'enemy' nor used personal attacks in this thread. Considering that this is the CDZ, you should try and not do so yourself. Your entire post to me was dripping with sarcasm and nothing more than a personal attack.


Leave the vitriolic behavior in the rest of the board - I was commenting to the other poster's incorrect allusion to free work not being so utilized.

 

[gnarlylove]

Leave the vitriolic behavior in the rest of the board - I was commenting to the other poster's incorrect allusion to free work not being so utilized.

Good idea. My post was not sarcastic. It was folksy. Prose need not be the absolute exclusive way to communicate. But I suppose you take lotsa of things to be challenges against your existence when at best I said you imposed views on me which I do not hold for the sake of wrongly criticizing me or trying to undermine my character (these sorts of issues have nothing to do with rational discussion of ideas). Since I do not hold the view that money is the only incentive capitalism takes advantage of, I think it's inane for you to claim that I do in spite of what I said.

However, you said my quote about capitalism treats work as drudgery, I was making a broad appeal to minimum wage labor, the topic of discussion. I could have been more clear about the reference of wage labor and should have know nit-picking for the sake of non-constructive criticism would appear from the shadows. I know these whims overtake many people but I have told you before, whether you care to remember or not, I respect you and think you are intelligent. But you've conveniently dismissed that since it counters your argument that I am vitriolic towards you. In fact, I agree virtually with everything you said and so was confused why you (intentionally) misconstrued my position.

Regardless, let me clarify. My statement in regards to capitalism's typical and indeed main incentive is money. To deny this among low wage laborers would bring astonishment. My statement is not inconsistent with the fact that other incentives are used; my point was that in large part, capitalism employs money as incentive in every wage position. It is the very definition of wage, to receive remuneration for the labor, aka pay. My point was to say capitalism has taken advantage of this money incentive as the basis of all economies. This is not to say other incentives don't enter the picture, like I said.

But again, I am saying nothing new. You seem to care less what I am saying and are convinced you must criticize me despite your post being entirely consistent with mine, the one with which you have apparent criticism. I charge that you are hung up on the fact I said it, not the fact you disagree with the comment. So yeah, that is the definition of irrational. We are debating ideas, personal issues of disliking someone should not enter the picture.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you not see the difference between us right in this post?

Here's your "evidence":

"My arguments" are not mine. They are founded on the basis of research. You act like your empathic claims are true because you said it. We all know everyone is prone to error. Perhaps we are both in error.

Can you tell the difference between what your saying and that reality might be entirely different? In other words, do you admit it's possible be drawling erroneous conclusions?

I cannot find any evidence that you care much about this difference. At this point, debate becomes pointless. For some reason I knew you don't listen well to opposite viewpoints and yet I still engaged with you. The only way we could have productive discussion is if I admitted everything you say is the truth. But what's the point then? There still isn't one. I am well aware that it's natural to think you are right. But there is quite a difference between that and what you engage in. I fully admit I am fallible and am open to being wrong. Self-reflection and internal honesty are crucial for human interaction. If you fail to think you might be wrong, then you will only amplify those claims leading to more and more unfalsifiable claims.

I think you claim that financial institution bring only good to society is approaching this unfalsifiable status. You admit the bailout was decisive harm on society. But did you know it benefited the institutions that helped inflame the crisis? They became stronger in some respects and certainly bigger. So indeed, no matter what happens, there is a benefit from financial institutions, regardless of what's going on in society.

There is profit in time of crisis. That's because if your a CEO, you externalize the costs, and suddenly, poof, the costs disappear. But do the costs really disappear? I know you think they do and that means you are committed to avoiding thinking about a different perspective. Namely, the costs do not disappear but are transferred.

Every working class American inherently knows--they don't disappear--they are shifted on the public and the environment. Privatization does not reduces costs, instead it shifts the burden from internal to the company or system to outside it. Since you would never acknowledge this in a million years, it was pointless of me to tell you. It's not like financial institutions do not bring grave harm and systemic risk, you just refuse to think about this--and I've provided three renowned economists who say exactly what I am; namely that it's likely that overall, the net effect of financial institutions are harmful (meaning they do benefit but the benefit is overshadowed by the grave risk and loss that is inevitable when costs are externalized).

To cast your argument in a different light, its like your using an argument that was more like a tactic in the 80s and before. A rising tide lifts all boats. In your context this means financial institutions generate profit and this trickles down, lifting up society. First off, we all know it does not trickle, if it does anything at all. Wages have virtually stagnated or declined since the big trickle down days. But let's take the other side that says innovation benefits society. It does on the face value but does it really?

Lot's of talk, lot's of opinion, zero direct evidence.
Here is my evidence:

Financial Information | United Way
2012 Consolidated Financial Statements
Page 8, Investments, Custodial Funds, Truist Asset Management.

Direct undisputed proof that the United Way that helps hundreds of thousands of Americans, and Millions world wide, use financial institutions to do it.

Then you hilliarously say"
""My arguments" are not mine. They are founded on the basis of research. You act like your empathic claims are true because you said it."

Really? Because I just posted direct facts. You just posted opinion. What I said isn't true because I said it, it's true because you can look at the evidence, and see that it is in fact true.

You claim that I said all financial institutions are beneficial, but then point out that I said the bailouts of bad institutions was bad. You contradicted yourself in two sentences.

You claimed that the bailouts benefited institutions that "inflamed" the crisis. That is not only irrelevant, but false. It's irrelevant because I already said I was against the bailout. But it's also false, because it didn't benefit the companies the inflamed the crisis. Countrywide did not get a bailout. Bank of American got a bailout, in order to buy Countrywide. Bank of American was not dealing in sub-prime loans. Countrywide was. The primary beneficiaries of the bailout, were the bond holders of the companies. The Bond holders were pensions, foundations, and foreign investors, and foriegn governments. Those were the main beneficiaries of the bailout. Not the institutions that inflamed the crisis.

You claim CEO's externalize costs. While I'm sympathetic to that claim, the people arguing from your perspective, rarely if ever, have direct evidence of this. When my next door neighbor opens a pig farm next to my home, I can point to direct evidence of externalized costs, namely the decrease in my property value. I can say that my property was worth X, and now is worth Y, and the drop between is the externalized cost of the pig farm operations. But most of what the left refers to as externalize costs, are merely made up, fictional fabrications, built on estimates on estimates, to come up with some magic number of externalized costs. If you want to show me direct evidence of externalized costs, related to the topic at hand, by all means. But saying blaw blaw blaw, is not evidence. That's opinion.

You claim privatizing does not reduce costs, but shifts cost somewhere else. Yet there are millions of examples where that is not true. Again, making the claim, and proving it are two different things. Ironically you mentioned Chile. Did you know that Chile, the pension system is privatized? And there system costs a fraction as much as our Social Security, which is going broke, and their system is not. Where is the externalized costs there, given you are the one who brought up Chile?

Then you talk about rising tide lifts all boats, and trickle down, as if it's not true. But it is true. Trickle down isn't something that happened in the 1980s. It's happening, now. It's happening all over the world. It has happened all throughout history. Trickle down is how the world works. Everything works from trickle down. Every job that exists, exists because of trickle down. Even self employed people, generally only have jobs because of trickle down. That self employed auto mechanic, where do you think he got the tools, or the parts, to fix your car? From some rich guy, who had them built. If you are a free-lance accountant, where do you think you got the computer, printer, ink paper, and software to do your accounting? Trickle down. Some rich guy somewhere, had all of that made, which allows you to have a job. Trickle down is how the world works.

And lastly, you claimed wages have stagnated, and I already said, they have not. The only wages that have stagnated, have been "household income", and that's because of divorce, and college students moving out on their own.

There is quality observation that shows more consumer choice does not always imply better for consumers. (see Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice | Talk Video | TED or his book, which I read.

Yes I am aware of this. So, what exactly does this have to do with anything we're discussing here? Minimum wage? Banks? Capitalism?
You can't seriously suggest that people in the Soviet Union were better off without choice?

A report published in January by the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights and the Center for Studies and Support for Local Development (CEADEL) offers a detailed case study of the corruption, abuse and shameless profiteering that often exemplify the global supply chain, demonstrating that globalization and "free trade" do not "lift all boats" but instead build more yachts for the 1%.

Here's the report: http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/document/1401-alianzaguatemala.pdf

Back in the 1990s, they pushed a yacht tax, which killed the American Yacht industry, leaving over a thousand lower and middle income employees unemployed and jobless. It's ironic that people complain about rich people having yachts, yet claim to care about the lower and middle class, as if they were better off unemployed.

Similarly, Walmart pays more wages for jobs, than nearly any other company with similar positions, yet here you are posting a link attacking them.

It reminds me of the screaming over Nikey Shoe Factory in Malaysia. Oh how horrible that they were paying people so little. Then you look at the actual facts, and find that Nikey was paying those people more money than they could earn anywhere else in Malaysia. That for ever one positions open, they had over 500 applications, because the Malaysians knew there was no better position. But the people on the left screamed and yelled, until Nikey agreed to pay more. Of course in order to pay employees more money in wages, they had to lay off other workers to free up that wage money. Hundreds of Malaysians lost their jobs, and ended up worse off, unemployed, or employed somewhere else earning much less.

But the left never cares. They harm people over and over, and as long as they "feel good" about it, they don't give a crap what happens to those poor people.

Similarly, I wager you have never been to Guatemala, nor know anything about it. I have supported several mission trips to Guatemala, and talked with the people who want there. These people in Guatemala, have little hope for a job at all. Their system is so screwed up, that just opening a business alone, is like pulling teeth, and thus finding a job in itself is near impossible. They have no education, no skills, no abilities, and are desperate for anything. So Walmart comes in, and offers thousands of jobs, to desperate people, all of which pay far more than anything they could get elsewhere, and here you are trying to tell me that Free trade hasn't lifted all boats? You think those Guatemalans would be better off starving with no job?

Nah, you are wrong. Tons of opinion, very little fact.

So the benefits of the wealthy do not simply benefit society. This as not an axiom like you keep repeating. Maybe the best we can do is say financial institutions bring grave harm and risk AS WELL AS stark benefits. That's the best compromise I can come up with. But like I said, those three renowned economists think there is greater harm than good produced--the net result.

Tell that to the Chinese that before were earning $2 a week. 63% of China was living below the poverty line, without those harmful wealthy people screwing them over.

Tell that to the Malaysians whose jobs you eliminated by attacking Nikey. Tell them how much better off they are earning less, if anything, now that you eliminated their jobs.

Tell that to the Guatemalans, who have jobs working for Walmart, earning more than they could have ever earned anywhere else.

You have the right to be wrong.

Steering it back to some semblance of minimum wage debate, I would like to comment that money should not be the only incentive to work. Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham. Human beings are by nature creative and expressive, those who love their work would do and and indeed do it even when they aren't being paid. So capitalism has missed out on developing full human potential by a massive scale. People could be productive just as easily without the money incentive, it's just a matter of what you like and what you do and beginning to think outside of the money-ist world and work era we live in.

In pre-78 China, if you were born to a chinese impoverished farmer, you were required by the communist government to work on the farm, and remain poor. You would grow up poor and impoverished. You would live poor and impoverished. You would die poor and impoverished, working every day of your life, until you died. Didn't matter if you liked your job. Didn't matter if you enjoyed your work. Nothing mattered. The communist government gave you this as your lot, and that was your lot in life.

Capitalism gives people freedom. You can work at Wendy's until you die, or move on. You can Remain a warehouse worker, or start your own company. You can be a drunk guy, whittling duck callers on your back porch, and end up a multi-millionaire with a TV show on A&E.

Under Communism, and Socialism, "drudgery" is a law.
Under Free-market Capitalism, "drudgery" is a choice.

If you are miserable in your job, the only one keeping you there, is you. A few years back I had a very bad year. I decided I didn't like my job. So I quit. No one came and stopped me. I got another job, at someplace better, and life went on.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm not challenging historical events and the existence of countries that you mention, Androw. But when you listen to mainstream media and take what is said as graven in stone, you are right to believe what you believe and I am wrong. I admit my view of parasitism is false as long as mainstream media is accurate.

However, what you have understood to be facts, like externalizing costs make them disappear, are interpretations of events from a certain perspective. If you ask Jamie Dimon if he thought the 08 crisis was good or bad, he'd ultimately conclude it was overall good agreeing with you (his pay increased by 5 million while gaining millions more in unreleased bonuses). If you ask a working class citizen, they will tell you the 08 crisis was not good, especially if they lost a home as a result. Who is right, Androw? Don't answer. I know you'll say Dimon because that's the perspective you've assumed to be universal.

But what I hope you realize this is not a universal reality for millions of Americans. Please stop wasting your time on me and read those who I've mentioned. Just read the economists who disagree with your conclusions, or are you too scared your axioms will be unhinged? They exist, are rigorous and scholarly, based on case studies and they conclude financial institutions net result is harm to society, ya know, the 97% of the population.

The following takes issue with your common approach. You mention facts intertwined with false interpretations of them: Countrywide, in a market system, would have collapsed. So long Countrywide! The fact they were bought by BoA who was handed 25 billion to do so, kept Countrywide alive. Thus Countrywide was pretty happy, right? Why? Because they shouldn't exist but they do! So while Countrywide had to cut back some, they are now part of a larger conglomerate of wealth. And wealth=political influence. This keeps Countrywide in the game under a new, wealthier, stronger guise. Thus they can effect American policy to be super socialist, taking tax payer money to bail them out over and over.

This is indeed the law of state-sponsored socialism or "drudgery"--bailing out the rich AT THE EXPENSE OF SOCIETY. To bail out working class people from their debts would be a fraction of 7.7 trillion.

You asserted a lot of information that is false, albeit reported as truth. Please stop your one-sided understanding and educate yourself. This PDF and video is a study on the economics that you say benefit the population. Their conclusion is the opposite, http://www.epi.org/publication/failure-by-design/

You can continue to ignore the data and facts that exist which directly counter many of your seemingly endless assertions. This enables you to keep claiming that much of what you say is true. So go ahead and ignore it, but don't think you are some radically intelligent person who just can't get through to me. You are smart and I hope you use your smarts to understand the world better.

 

[BillyZane]

Steering it back to some semblance of minimum wage debate, I would like to comment that money should not be the only incentive to work. Many of us know this in our own lives but given capitalism has treated work as drudgery and therefore you've gotta pay people to do it has been a real sham. Human beings are by nature creative and expressive, those who love their work would do and and indeed do it even when they aren't being paid. So capitalism has missed out on developing full human potential by a massive scale. People could be productive just as easily without the money incentive, it's just a matter of what you like and what you do and beginning to think outside of the money-ist world and work era we live in.

I don't think that is true for the average person. It MIGHT be true for the self employed, but who would put up with a boss and the garbage that comes with it if they weren't being compensated? To do so would be stupid.

That takes the standard though and attempts to fit it into a non-paying model. Of course it does not makes sense. Gnarly is wrong though – the supposition that the economy does not utilize non-paying labor is completely incorrect. There are many enormously successful instances of getting people to work entirely for free. Wiki is an example. They succeed with a labor force that is almost entirely free for them to draw on. Many games operate under that same principal as well. Look at anything Bethsaida produces – they pay people to code the core of the game but the VAST majority of content is actually produced after the fact. Completely for free by the community.

Free labor, in contrast to your post, does not have people that ‘deal with a boss’ or any of the other ‘drudgery’ of a common job. It is done at will. The key is, of course, finding something to motivate people other than wealth. It seems that the most common motivator is exposure.

I concede your point, which essentially proves that every rule has an exception. Let's just agree that the vast majority of people are not going to put in the labor necessary for a business to thrive without some sort of recompense.

 

[AntiParty]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think that is true for the average person. It MIGHT be true for the self employed, but who would put up with a boss and the garbage that comes with it if they weren't being compensated? To do so would be stupid.

That takes the standard though and attempts to fit it into a non-paying model. Of course it does not makes sense. Gnarly is wrong though – the supposition that the economy does not utilize non-paying labor is completely incorrect. There are many enormously successful instances of getting people to work entirely for free. Wiki is an example. They succeed with a labor force that is almost entirely free for them to draw on. Many games operate under that same principal as well. Look at anything Bethsaida produces – they pay people to code the core of the game but the VAST majority of content is actually produced after the fact. Completely for free by the community.

Free labor, in contrast to your post, does not have people that ‘deal with a boss’ or any of the other ‘drudgery’ of a common job. It is done at will. The key is, of course, finding something to motivate people other than wealth. It seems that the most common motivator is exposure.

I concede your point, which essentially proves that every rule has an exception. Let's just agree that the vast majority of people are not going to put in the labor necessary for a business to thrive without some sort of recompense.

I can concede that but I think that it misses something. The point is not the fact that pay for drives the economy but that a free labor force can and does crate and even creates successful and profitable businesses. The key here is that the labor is different. Sure, there is a pay for model owner – that is not always the case either btw – BUT the vast majority of the labor is completely free. The difference is that the labor force is also vastly larger. Wiki could employ a hundred people and complete the required tasks OR it can rely on literally millions of free laborers in varying degrees instead. It opted for the latter.

I will concede that the vast majority of people both want and demand pay for their labor. Nothing wrong or unusual with that but I think it is a mistake to underestimate the capability of a completely free and diverse laboring community. There are a lot of groups, businesses and/or communities that utilize this type of workforce to achieve some pretty interesting results. I would also state that the majority of those that charge for their labor actually go home and then offer it to another entity completely for free. Many time that entails running a hobby group or volunteering – examples of where people put in free labor all the time.

In the end, such does not drive an innovative and advanced economy BUT it is a very interesting and intrinsic part of it.