Who is responsible for YOU?

[Care4all]

you must take care of yourself, your family unit first...under any circumstance....this is your own responsibility, then after that, is debatable on what one does and how they do it, to help others with much much less....imo

since you and I usually come down on opposite sides of most issues I am interested in your honest answer to the following:

Many here have claimed that it is the obligation of every business to provide every worker a basic standard of living. I am not saying that is what you believe, but does such a position not contradict the one you have given here? If you maintain that you must take care of yourself and your family, what do you say to those perhaps further left that claim your employer (via a government mandate) take care of you in some facet above and beyond what your skills warrant?

I think all circumstances are different for every business and it would be a mistake to put them all in one big pot, with a statement like that Bern....

(and i do not differ with you as much as you think, I just have a softer, gentler, kinder sound than you do! )

I think that most businesses can pay their employees a few dollars more than minimum wage and still be profitable....

will it be a living wage? That depends on where one lives and where the business is located.

I don't think this because i think the business owners should provide for their employees, but I think this because all we have is our own labor and labor of any kind is still labor none the less and there is a minimum of respect that should be given for such in a partnership between the owner and the employee.

And yes, there is a dollar figure of profit that associates itself with ones labor costs and what is produced....And if I were a business owner and felt I needed an additional employee, but could only afford to pay them minimum wage at best for what i estimate they would initially produce, I would probably hold off on the hiring of this minimum wage employee and encourage my existing employees to cover the estimated additional production growth.....thus improving my existing employees productivity first.....

Then, after this is done and i still felt that i could use some additional help that would produce more volume for my company, i may pay $10/$12 bucks an hour instead of minimum wage for the additional opening, but only for 20 hours a week....I could get a more mature employee with better reasoning skills or better apptitude for my kind of business who would start out of the gate, producing more than the lower wage person that i would have to spend hours training to get them up to speed.... so essentially costing the the company the same because it took some of my or one of my employees time away from producing, while training the unknowledgable other.

to me, what i said above is something that is just the ABC's of business....

Now for the exceptions to the rule where for certain, completely menial jobs, a higher wage is just near impossible to give....according to many....

This is debatable....many say, how can you pay for more than a minimum wage for a person to stand behind the counter and serve up people's orders for their food?

I argue that this job is not as menial as one would think....someone has to do it and someone has to stand on their feet for 8 straight hours, behind a counter with steam coming from the greese and hot lights above and could easily be so lousy at service that your customers would not ever return....

These dedicated employees that work 40 hours a week for you with no incidences of rude behavior or not being able to keep up with the fast pace, do deserve more for their work and deserve to be paid accordingly....some owners, don't think so and think minimum is all they can do, but i would beg to differ with them.... These people are giving you a full work week of their time... that produces a great deal for the business.

Even the janitor has responsibilities and a workload that I don't even know the routine for... and though i have made $50 bucks an hour in my career, I would probably be the worst Janitor in the world and completely clueless on how to approach the job. To me, that makes the Janitor's worth, a worth of a living wage....

I wouldn't want to stand behind the counter at McD's for all day long either, or spend 8 hours on my feet going in to each hotel room spending hours cleaning up other people's mess and bathrooms...

These may seem like "thoughtless" jobs to the intellectual and not worth more than a skimpy minimum, but again....this woman spends hours upon hours of fairly hard labor, doing something that I would NEVER DO.....giving them great worth, because the job has to be done or the business can not operate....(Up here, in the summer when the hotels are filled with tourists, the hotels have to pay $15 bucks an hour for Chamber Maids, in order to get the help they need to do this job....and that is more than the hospital pays for medical technicians starting out...but in the South where there are alot of poor people looking for any job, the business will probably only pay them minimum, if that....for the same hard, and dirty job, labor.)

Soooo, yes.....i think most businesses can afford to pay a wage that is worth, working for....there may be new small businesses just starting out that think they can not afford such but i would say that they shouldn't add the new person, and should pick up the workload themselves, until they can afford to pay a respectful wage for their new position.

Obviously someone that sits in a chair and spends the 8 hours just putting pencils in to a pencil sharpener, to sharpen them may have the thoughtless, sssso so simple job, that does not deserve more money than $2. bucks an hour....this is an exception to the rule.

People first, then money....

As far as being responsible for yourself first and your family first....I still stick by that, even if you are a small business owner....this does not mean that you take more of the profits for yourself and give less to your employees who produce for you with their time and labor.

There is a fair and happy medium. As the business owner, you will be rewarded with employees that have a sense of self worth, which will come back to you, in their productivity....it will make them "whistle while they work"!

I don't know if i answered your question or not...it may seem like a bunch of babbling? This really is a conversation that one could have better using their vocal cords instead of their fingers to express it...

care

 

[editec]

A lot of the pampered scions on this board simply haven't got a clue how hard many people work for their miserable wage.

How could they possible know since they've never done most of that sort of job?

And then we have the people who actually did earn their status as being reasonable well off.

Now I am somewhat more sympathetic to their complaints given that they are the people who are making up in their taxes the taxes that are not being paid by the superwealthy, and they are ALSO paying the lions share of the taxes spend on all other forms of welfare and stupid government spending, too.

If there is a class of people who are TRULY getting screwed, it's the UPPER MIDDLE class and the LOWER LEVEL wealthy.

Most of them work their asses off, pay ENORMOUS rates of taxes, and get doodle-squat for it.

SOME of them understand that the welfare types get very very little of their dough, but a lot of them, particularly those who are young, seem to not YET undertstand the TRUE NATURE of the SCAM that is being played on them.

 

[KittenKoder]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

 

[editec]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

If you stop letting them outsource aren't you imposing a regulation on them?

 

[KittenKoder]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

If you stop letting them outsource aren't you imposing a regulation on them?

True ... I am sure there is some way to stop them without actually regulating them, it was just an idea, not perfect but a possibility. All I know is that the only reason the laborers have so little control over their lives is because they cannot break free from the corporations, which do have too much power in many areas. But the regulations they have now are doing more harm than good. If they deregulate them completely then more people will be able to work for themselves instead of having to answer to the desk jockies.

 

[Yukon]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

Just like the Wall Street banks were de-regulated? Good Lord but you are misinformed.

 

[editec]

While I'm inclined to agree that many regulations actually serve to protect the powerful by excluding those with less capital from getting into the game, I am not anguaine about liberating corporations to do whatever they please.

We essantially had that system in the late 19th and early 20th century and the corporations were predators who preyed on their customers AND the workers.

That system has already proven to be a diaster for most people.

 

[driveby]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

Just like the Wall Street banks were de-regulated? Good Lord but you are misinformed.

........

 

[driveby]

A simple solution, deregulate everything, stop forcing businesses to run in the manner they do now and stop letting them outsource. Then, give the laborers the right to work for themselves instead of needing business licenses and all that paperwork and permits. The business world and all those who are overpaid desk jockies would fall and the laborers would actually prosper. Simple solution that no one will want to take the chance on.

Just like the Wall Street banks were de-regulated? Good Lord but you are misinformed.

The next good point you make will be the first since you've been here, good luck.....

 

[KittenKoder]

While I'm inclined to agree that many regulations actually serve to protect the powerful by excluding those with less capital from getting into the game, I am not anguaine about liberating corporations to do whatever they please.

We essantially had that system in the late 19th and early 20th century and the corporations were predators who preyed on their customers AND the workers.

That system has already proven to be a diaster for most people.

However, in spite of the increased regulations they are still preying on the consumer and the worker, which is the problem. If a system doesn't show improvement after several decades then it's sometimes best to scrub it and start from scratch.

 

[Bern80]

A lot of the pampered scions on this board simply haven't got a clue how hard many people work for their miserable wage.

How could they possible know since they've never done most of that sort of job?

It never ends with you does it editiec. It must be an involuntary thing that you have no control over seeing as you don't seem to have the ability to stop doing it. It is amazing how often you need to whip out this premise that has exactly zero evidence to make your argument work. How can you claim to have any credibility or integrity when you have to constantly do this?

The fact is you simply don't know shit about the working background of those of us that don't agree with you. I HAVE worked on an assembly line asshole, I have worked the graveyard shifts. People like Skull have taken the risk of taking out loans to start their own business. So who the FUCK SPECIFICALLY are these 'scions on THIS BOARD you speak of that you know so much about?

And then we have the people who actually did earn their status as being reasonable well off.

Now I am somewhat more sympathetic to their complaints given that they are the people who are making up in their taxes the taxes that are not being paid by the superwealthy, and they are ALSO paying the lions share of the taxes spend on all other forms of welfare and stupid government spending, too.

If the super wealthy are ot paying taxes where is all the tax revenue coming from? The math doesn't work out ed. The middle and poor simply can not come even close to accounting for the massive dollar figure in tax revenue our government take in every year

If there is a class of people who are TRULY getting screwed, it's the UPPER MIDDLE class and the LOWER LEVEL wealthy.

Most of them work their asses off, pay ENORMOUS rates of taxes, and get doodle-squat for it.

So now we're down to like what, 1% of the population you are pissing and moaning about? Many of you have now taken to using this term SUPER-wealthy now. My theory as to why is because the evidence is so overwhelming as to how the majority of wealthy people attain their wealth that you now need to create another group of people that you can label as backstabbers, labor devaluers, greed mongers, etc.

 

[The InDesigner]

I am responsible for me. I also have a responsibility for the state of the international community, within reason. I am capable of having an effect on my community, my friends, neighbors, and my children, and perhpas someday, on the entire international cummunity. I am responsible for the nature of that effect. All people must take financial responsibility as well. However, it's not right to punish someone for failing to meet that financial responsibility by failing to meet one's ethical obligation to help those in need.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's also arguable that we have a moral responsibility to the helpless, too. For instance, if we were to walk by a young child drowning in a shallow pond, few would claim that it is moral to continue walking simply because you don't want to get your clothes dirty, and very many would claim that it is quite immoral. Yet similarly meager sacrifices (such as financial ones) could generate massive benefits for the poor in third-world countries, yet so many believe that it is a matter of personal charity rather than a moral obligation to donate to them.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's also arguable that we have a moral responsibility to the helpless, too. For instance, if we were to walk by a young child drowning in a shallow pond, few would claim that it is moral to continue walking simply because you don't want to get your clothes dirty, and very many would claim that it is quite immoral. Yet similarly meager sacrifices (such as financial ones) could generate massive benefits for the poor in third-world countries, yet so many believe that it is a matter of personal charity rather than a moral obligation to donate to them.

Okay Agna ... with all our problems it's stupid for people to worry about other countries like this, really, this is one of the major reasons our poor don't get what they need.

 

[Tigerlils13]

It's also arguable that we have a moral responsibility to the helpless, too. For instance, if we were to walk by a young child drowning in a shallow pond, few would claim that it is moral to continue walking simply because you don't want to get your clothes dirty, and very many would claim that it is quite immoral. Yet similarly meager sacrifices (such as financial ones) could generate massive benefits for the poor in third-world countries, yet so many believe that it is a matter of personal charity rather than a moral obligation to donate to them.

Okay Agna ... with all our problems it's stupid for people to worry about other countries like this, really, this is one of the major reasons our poor don't get what they need.

I believe that neither one of your arguments can be held as an absolute right or wrong. Instead, both arguments must be held in balance, coexisting at the same time.
That said, it is in my opinion that, for now, we must consider the American poor more important than those in 3rd world countries. This does not mean we should forsake those countries. What it means is that we must see to our needs first and formost, primarily so that we will be a stronger people who can contribute more to our world in the future.

 

[Agnapostate]

Okay Agna ... with all our problems it's stupid for people to worry about other countries like this, really, this is one of the major reasons our poor don't get what they need.

No, I think it likely that the rate of marginal utility (in terms of the benefits provided to the poor) diminishes in relation to the domestic lower classes here when compared to the starving in third-world countries. That is to say, the poor in third-world countries would receive a greater amount of utility from provisions granted to them than the poor here would. In terms of the aforementioned analogy, it's as though one individual was drowning in a pond and in danger of death and another was drowning in a pond and in danger of disability. If you were to save the one in danger of disability, and prevent him/her from becoming disabled, your end consequence would be one life, but the other individual would die. By contrast, if you were to save the person in danger of death, your end consequence would be one life and one disabled life, thereby providing a greater degree of utility.

 

[editec]

A lot of the pampered scions on this board simply haven't got a clue how hard many people work for their miserable wage.

How could they possible know since they've never done most of that sort of job?

It never ends with you does it editiec. It must be an involuntary thing that you have no control over seeing as you don't seem to have the ability to stop doing it. It is amazing how often you need to whip out this premise that has exactly zero evidence to make your argument work. How can you claim to have any credibility or integrity when you have to constantly do this?

Do What?

My gift of pointing out the stunningly obvious contempt that some expressed for those who are not making it?

It's a gift.

We have had people here essantially telling us that the working poor need to suffer the indignity of working their asses off and not making it because they are lazy or didn't study hard enough in school.

Now what motivates such shallow thinking?

Self agrandizing nonsense, that's what motivates that kind of thinking, Bern.

Classist arrogance and classist fear, mostly.

They fear that if they admit that the system which served them well, serves others -- who also work their asses off -- very badly, then they'd have to admit that they are not the complete masters of their own destiny that they're telling themselves that they are.

You worked hard for every advantage you have now you say? I do not doubt you worked hard.

But are you really the master or your own destiny?

Of course not.

Life is a mixture of what you start out with, what you do with it, and what happens to you along the way.

And the what happens along the way is that which you have absolutely no control over.

That descibes the human experience, Bernie, yours, mine... everyones.

So you worked hard you you're making it?

Good for you. I hope your good fortune never turns.

But so too did millions of other equally talented, equally hard working people work hard and they are in serious trouble right now.

The bottom 80% of the population of the USA own 15% of this lands wealth, Bernie.

So spare us your Horatio Algers stories mythologies.

that myth which you cling to for your own self image doesn't have the resonance that truth does.

We either fix this system such that most people can make it, or Bernie?

This system will go down.

And when it goes down?

People just like you will go down right along with it.

Word to the wise.

American either decides to pay for social justice now, or America pays much more for not having insured that it existed.

You can take your supply side trickly down bullshit and you can shove it up your ass.

Do you get that?

Everything you think you know about the world is a fucking LIE, bernie.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Please, it's a myth that progressive taxation (which redistributes based on simple acknowledgment of the diminishing rate of marginal utility), "steals" wealth from those in the upper class that have earned it. The majority of those in the upper class maintain their wealth due to the state acting as a stabilizing agent within the capitalist economy, as well as an agent that has traditionally protected the wealthy.

Would ya explain what it is SPECIFICALLY, that leads you to believe that confiscating the product of Person A's labor and giving it to Person B; who did NOT earn it and is NOT required to even CONSIDER paying it back, can be argued to be anything EXCEPT theft? And while you're at it, ya might as well explain what it is that you've propped this notion that 'the State' is protecting through their acting as a 'stabilizing agent'...

This is the second time which you've been directly challenged to do so...

And YES... at some point, your refusal to substantiate your feelings will be a sufficient basis to conclude that you're 'feelings' amount to little more that ethereal wishes, which rest upon no substantial basis... OKA: you being full of anarcho-communist shit.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

what is ironic as fuck about this thread is that I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that the very people who are crying about total self reliance also claim to be christians. Clearly, they are not their brother's keeper.

Ed Schultz yesterday was trying to explain it to a right winger who called in to his radio show. He said, "we're both in a canoe, the rapids are approaching, you know how to swim and I don't, i should have wore a lifejacket, are you just going to let me die or are you going to save me"

And the conservative said he would let you drown. Nice!!!

Ed Schultz? ROFLMNAO... the guy is a LOSER... He's an imbecile of the first order.

But it is hilarious that you would choose to source someone who is incapable of advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument; clearly some form of leftist soul-mate.

The analogy is absurd on its own, it doesn't serve the purpose he hoped it would, it fails to illustrate the circumstances to which he speaks...

Conservatives and Social entitlements are not analogous to a canoe on a river heading to the rapids... where a swimmer and a non-swimmer are facing hitting the water; with the poor non-swimmer being dependent uppon the swimmer...

Its closer to two people standing next to the river, the swimmer telling the non swimmer to let him teach him how to swim and to properly use a boyancy device, with the leftist dock-master bureaucrat telling them to get that canoe in the water and handing the non-swimmer the Anchor and telling him to 'hang onto this...'

Conservatives want the non swimmer to learn how to swim, so that when the day comes that they end up in the water, they don't drown... leftists want to excuse their fears and their failure to succeed.

 

[Yukon]

The Government is responsible to ensure that people are protected from the thieving Wall Street Bankers.