|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
drew
|
|
response 38 of 176:
| 
Mar 11 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #33:
The way to deal with this is, rather than having a step-function for
assistance versus income, have a continuous linear scale. To wit, you get $X
per month, minus your income, with a minimum of zero. The exact numbers for
the slope and zero-point to be determined.
That said, and re outsourcing et al, we do need to consider just exactly
what we want in an economy. ie, just exactly what people want/need money
*for*, and why we have a system of work-a-job-for-money-to-buy-stuff.Therein
lays the clue on what needs to be done about poverty.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 39 of 176:
|
Mar 11 19:36 UTC 2006 |
No, we want the 'Merican Dream. You graduate high school, your wife
doesn't work, and you have 5 children and live in a $400k house...all
paid for through your organized labor factory job.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 40 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:08 UTC 2006 |
as opposed to the republican/libertarian idea
where everyone is an entrepeneur.
lol
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:40 UTC 2006 |
cyklone said:
" think #21 conclusively proves that Richard really is insane. And BTW,
please don't speak as if you represent liberals. As I've mentioned
before, your inability to present cogent arguments and clear thoughts
harms the liberal cause in ways that are probably beyond your limited
comprehension."
Once again cyklone resorts to personal attacks and cut downs while
making no effort to back it up.
All I said was I do not think the minimum wage is high enough to allow
poor people to be able to improve their circumstances, and that it
ought to keep up with inflation or be tied to inflation. What is
illogical about that? If it was tied to inflation, the minimum wage
would go way up right now, and it would cause business owners to
pressure lawmakers to find ways to make inflation go down. Because if
inflation went down, and the minimum wage was tied into it, the minimum
wage would go back down too.
I think cyklone and nharmon show a complete lack of compassion and
understanding for the plight of the working poor. I also think neither
has ever lived in a big city. Here in New York City, there are adults
working for minimum wage, people working at McDonalds and pushing mops
in offices after hours. Who are these adults working for minimum
wage? They are unskilled laborers, many of whom have moved to this
country and gotten green cards and are trying to support their families
and make a new start here. They do not know the language well, they do
not have the experience or training to get jobs that pay more, so they
take the lowest wage jobs and work very long hours.
nharmon you are SADLY mistaken if you think the only people working
minimum wage jobs are spoiled kids like you who only worked at Walmart
so you could afford your video games.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 42 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:46 UTC 2006 |
Well Richard, you may be technically correct that I haven't provided any facts
regarding your position on minimum wage, although I was QUITE particular that
your particular "da man is keeping women down" view of the abortion debate
patronizes the very women you claim to support. As for your "thinking" I don't
understand the working poor, let me disabuse you of your notions: I was
"working poor" for many years and have a great deal of compassion for them.
And if I were to play your "I think" game, I would say "I think Richard is
probably a rich trust fund kid with liberal guilt who has no idea how the poor
live outside of NYC." See, two can play that game, and the outcome is pretty
meaningless.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 43 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:02 UTC 2006 |
WA state has a minimum wage which is indexed to inflation, which means it
goes up automagically and is currently $7.63/hr, the highest in the nation.
Needless to say it has less of an impact in Seattle than it does in the
rural portions of state where wages tend to be lower; some businesses near
the border with Idaho complain that it makes it difficult for them to be
competitive.
Indexing the minimum wage takes the issue of periodic adjustments off
the table politically, which is probably bad for Democrats in the long
run.
I'll agree that executive compensation at large companies is completely
out of control, growing faster than is justified by inflation or demand
or performance or much of anything else, and shows that corporate
governance as currently practiced is ineffective. I'm not convinced
that some sort of "maximum wage" law is a good remedy, although I'll
confess that I'm not sure what would actually work. Recent changes in
which mutual funds disclose their voting practices seem like a useful
first step, I suppose.
|
richard
|
|
response 44 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:09 UTC 2006 |
cyklone said:
"And if I were to play your "I think" game, I would say "I think
Richard is probably a rich trust fund kid with liberal guilt who has no
idea how the poor live outside of NYC."
first of all I grew up in Georgia and not in a big city. Second of
all, I am not/was not a rich trust fund kid and I have no
liberal "guilt" Third of all even if I didn't know idea how the poor
live outside NYC which I do, NYC is the most expensive city in this
country and it has the highest local taxes. Most of the people I know
here work at least two jobs and pay almost all their money in rent. It
is harder to be poor and live here than anywhere else. Evidently
people like nharmon and cyklone have never SEEN adults in their middle
age years working minimum wage jobs full time. I have, I see them
every day. It gives you a different perspective.
I do not think raising the minimum wage, even tying it to inflation, is
in and of itself going to get people off the welfare rolls. It has to
be part of a more comprehensive solution which includes controlling
inflation and providing more jobs and training and slowly changing the
rules for benefit payouts.
I'm trying to work towards a smaller, more effective government. I am
not the ones wanting to spend hundreds of billions of government
taxpayer dollars on overseas wars that we likely can't win and will be
in for a long time. I am not the ones who don't want the minimum wage
raised, so the poor stay poor and don't cause their own prices to go
up, and thereby force people to stay on medicare and welfare. That is
klg, nharmon and cyklone evidently.
I also think nharmon spreads the myth that most people getting
government benefit checks of one sort or another want to CONTINUE get
those checks. The vast majority of these people are proud, decent and
hardworking and don't want to spend the rest of their lives taking
charity. You do it to feed your family and keep the lights on, and you
do it as long as you have to, but that doesn't mean you are greedy and
lazy and don't want to improve your situation. That is a myth the
right wing propogates.
oh and marcvh is right, indexing the minimum wage and taking it off the
table as a political issue would be potentially bad for democrats.
Because its a good issue for democrats. But I'm more concerned about
doing the right thing than in keeping one of our pet issues alive just
so it can be an issue.
|
keesan
|
|
response 45 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:36 UTC 2006 |
I don't understand how if Walmart is paying $3 over minimum wages and minimum
wages go up $2, Walmart will have to raise its wages (from $8 to $8.50) to
stay competitive against other jobs paying minimum wages (of $7).
|
slynne
|
|
response 46 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:48 UTC 2006 |
It has to do with non-compensatory differentials, keesan. Not all jobs
are the same and there are things about certain jobs other than wages
and benefits that make people want them.
For example: You have two jobs paying the same wage. One of them is a
internship at large company. It is an office job. It is clean. It is
safe. It has a certain amount of prestige. The other job is in a coal
mine. It is dirty. It is dangerous. It has no prestige at all. Many more
people would choose the former job even though the wage is the same.
Now that is an extreme example, of course. But WalMart has the same
considerations. They probably have employees who are working there who
would prefer to have other jobs but choose not to because those other
jobs pay less. But if the minimum wage rises enough, Walmart might find
that the really good workers are able to get those other jobs because it
is always the good workers who are able to get and keep jobs. So they
raise their wage so it is still a couple of bucks above the minimum wage
in order to keep the good workers.
|
richard
|
|
response 47 of 176:
|
Mar 11 22:39 UTC 2006 |
good points in #46 Around here McDonald's paises above minimum wage,
but if the minimum wage is raised and you can suddenly make the same
or better money working somewhere else than McD's, you are likely
going to take it. Because who really wants to work at McD's in the
first place. So McD's would have to raise their pay.
Which isn't a bad thing, if places like McD's and Walmart suddenly
have incentives to pay their people more and give them better
benefits. Society as a whole is not going to crumble if everyone is
making more money. I thought that was the goal of capitalism.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 176:
|
Mar 12 00:56 UTC 2006 |
resp:47 You dont want *everyone* to make more money because then you
would probably have inflation that would negate any advances made. You
want the lower paid workers to make more money while those on the upper
end of the scale make the same or less.
|
richard
|
|
response 49 of 176:
|
Mar 12 03:07 UTC 2006 |
re #48 good point. Bill Gates doesn't need to make any more money.
He says that himself. He was Time's co-man of the year because he has
given away a huge amount of his money. Yet the forbes list of the
world's 100 richest men just came out and he's number one again for
the umpteenth year and they said the gap between number one and number
two has never been greater. Also on the list, though well further
down, are the five members of the Walton family who own WalMart. All
five, Sam Walton and his kids, are multi-billionaires.
But the difference is that unlike the misers at WalMart, Gates has
made many many of his employees at Microsoft wealthy in their own
right. And he pays WAY above minimum wage, even for the janitors who
mop his office floors and the cooks in his cafeterias.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 50 of 176:
|
Mar 12 05:06 UTC 2006 |
Microsoft outsources those functions.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 51 of 176:
|
Mar 12 05:33 UTC 2006 |
I think Richard's true nature has really come out in this item. In #41
he complains that "cyklone resorts to personal attacks and cut downs
while making no effort to back it up". And then later on in the SAME
ITEM, flings personal attacks at me. It seems that Richard can dish it
out but can't take it.
Here is a clue Richard. I grew up on free school lunches and lived in
subsidized housing. After my parents divorced I watched my mother go
from working minimum-wage jobs to graduating college. She did so with
grants and student loans. She didn't cheat the system and she worked her
ass off to provide for me and my sister. So why don't you think about
that before you tell me I was spoiled again.
You see, if you really knew me you would also realize how off-base your
comments regarding my teenage employment really are. To afford video
games? You really are a jackass. I got my HAM ticket in 1996, and had to
get a job in order to buy a radio. I also bought a 386 computer to learn
linux. A 386...in 1997.
I don't know why we expect Richard to be anything but completely
ignorant on issues like poverty. He doesn't even take the time to read
other peoples' items. Like when he accused me of spreading a myth about
welfare recipients not wanting to get off of welfare...BASED ON WHAT?
That two people left their jobs in order to avoid losing welfare? That
indicates a weakness in the welfare system, not in these people's
character. But what the hell, he might as well put words in my mouth so
he has something to post about.
I'm done arguing with Richard. If he isn't even going to read what you
write, and only respond with the typical liberal talking points, there
really is no point.
|
naftee
|
|
response 52 of 176:
|
Mar 12 06:05 UTC 2006 |
whoa ; nate. how old were you when your parents divorced ?
i hope you weren't subject to their arguments :(
|
slynne
|
|
response 53 of 176:
|
Mar 12 06:47 UTC 2006 |
You know, I would prefer it if we all could try to lay off the personal
attacks for a while. If you dont like richard's ideas, why not try
attacking them?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 54 of 176:
|
Mar 12 13:58 UTC 2006 |
In part because it's the personal inability of liberals such as him to
coherently present important liberal positions that undermines the
credibility of the positions themselves. As someone who believes
liberalism has some very important goals. I've had it with the damage the
likes of Richard have done to the good name of liberalism. If those who
support and advocate honest liberalism don't make the effort to confront
those who hold liberalism back, how can anyone expect America as a whole
to take liberalism seriously (as opposed to seeing it as some easy target
for conservatives to bash)?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 176:
|
Mar 12 19:27 UTC 2006 |
How about presenting coherently some "important liberal positions" to set an
example for us?
|
bru
|
|
response 56 of 176:
|
Mar 12 19:49 UTC 2006 |
I wonder if I presented a list of ideas how many we would all actually
disagree on, as opposed to the method of instituting them or paying for them?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 57 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #55: The most obvious would be that concentrating wealth and power in the
hands of a small elite is against the best interests of the country. The
other would be that the true measure of a society is how well it treats the
least fortunate and least powerful of its members.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:14 UTC 2006 |
Cyklone, I don't think those of us who tend to the conservative side
think Richard is a representative liberal. I certainly don't. He does
present many simplistic arguments with easy holes which are easy to
prove wrong.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 59 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:18 UTC 2006 |
I guess I'm glad to hear that. However, I've run into enough like him in A2,
and have heard other conservatives caricaturing his "type" enough times to
believe that he and his ilk do cause incredible harm to the cause of
liberalism.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 60 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:41 UTC 2006 |
Re #57: I'm not sure those positions are unique to the liberal cause
because conservatives also cite them in regards to their arguments. Take
welfare for example. Some conservatives draw the conclusion that
democrats seek to concentrate wealth and power by forming the welfare
system in such a way that it makes it very difficult to become
independant of it.
I think liberals and conservatives have a lot more in common than they
think, and it is the extremists on both sides that are trying to drive a
wedge inbetween.
|
jep
|
|
response 61 of 176:
|
Mar 12 22:40 UTC 2006 |
Well, nharmon, it's politics. The whole *point* is to have differences
and either resolve them or get as much of your own way as you can. The
parts we all agree on are by definition non-political.
It doesn't mean "their" side is inherently bad, or that "our" side is
better (whichever side you happen to be on). Some of the differences
are crucially important. But the great part is that we manage to come
to some sort of decision -- on everything -- without being at war with
one another.
|
scholar
|
|
response 62 of 176:
|
Mar 12 23:00 UTC 2006 |
Foolish.
|