|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
drew
|
|
response 88 of 176:
| 
Mar 14 01:25 UTC 2006 |
I shall repost a couple of questions pertinant to dealing with poverty:
* What exactly do people want/need money *for*?
* Why do we have a system of work-a-job-for-money-to-buy-stuff?
("Well DUH!!")
Of course I know the answers, or at least *have* answers, to these. But
I want others to formulate answers of their own. These questions must be taken
into account in any effort to help the poor, or the rich for that matter.
Perhaps it will indicate that a Minimum Wage is a good thing. Perhaps it will
indicate that it's a bad thing. But it must start with a solid idea of what
wealth, and poverty, *are*.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 89 of 176:
|
Mar 14 02:54 UTC 2006 |
Richard, you may not LIKE that your words are being "analyzed" but they
are. And you can't do anything about it. If you want to be politically
active, you either accept that reality or run the risk of doing lots of
damage to your cause. Unfortunately, you given me no reason to believe you
are any different in real life than you are on Grex. And even if you are,
your posts on grex are still damaging.
|
slynne
|
|
response 90 of 176:
|
Mar 14 03:00 UTC 2006 |
Money is simply a system for people to more easily trade things. This is
especially true for things like labor. All the other complexities of
money are like icing on the cake. Sometimes I think it is best not to
think too much about how lending institutions increase the money supply
or how a fiat currency works. ;)
Why do we have a system of work-a-job-for-money-to-buy-stuff? Well, the
big idea there is that it tends to be more efficient than the
alternatives. I work for a company that sells books. If they paid me in
books, I would have to spend a considerable amount of my time trading
those books for other things that I need. Never mind that the whole
business I work in wouldnt be possible without money.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 176:
|
Mar 14 04:33 UTC 2006 |
* What exactly do people want/need money *for*?
A blowjob
|
naftee
|
|
response 92 of 176:
|
Mar 14 05:37 UTC 2006 |
roumanian-style
|
keesan
|
|
response 93 of 176:
|
Mar 14 14:54 UTC 2006 |
In post-breakup Yugoslavia-that-was, people were being paid in things like
cement blocks by nearly broke factories. It was time consuming trading them
for food to people who needed the cement blocks or were willing to trade them
to someone else.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 94 of 176:
|
Mar 14 17:34 UTC 2006 |
sounds like an economy right up yer alley!
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 176:
|
Mar 14 18:29 UTC 2006 |
I shared a watermelon with a schtetl once.
|
twenex
|
|
response 96 of 176:
|
Mar 14 18:34 UTC 2006 |
Odd bloke...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 97 of 176:
|
Mar 14 21:45 UTC 2006 |
Why did you write "your money" in quotes, twenie? Do you in fact believe that
people who earn income do not "own" / are not entitled to have / keep it?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 98 of 176:
|
Mar 14 22:24 UTC 2006 |
In all fairness, I believe Jeff was talked about taxes that had been
collected by the government, and not people's income. Of course, there
are some who do not draw a distinction.
|
jep
|
|
response 99 of 176:
|
Mar 16 16:22 UTC 2006 |
Michigan's minimum wage is going up to $6.95 in October, then $7.15 per
hour next summer, and $7.40 the following summer, assuming the governor
signs the bill. The bill passed unanimously in the state senate, and
also passed in the House, though not unanimously.
In Michigan, there was (or is) going to be a constitutional amendment
on the issue. The Republicans in the legislature voted for the measure
in hopes of avoiding a big Democratic turnout from supporters of the
amendment. The Democrats sponsored the bill.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 176:
|
Mar 16 16:25 UTC 2006 |
I hope this doesn't make it a lot tougher for my teenage stepdaughter
and her friends to find work next year. Other than that concern, I'm
pretty much ambivalent about the inimum wage increase.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 101 of 176:
|
Mar 16 16:27 UTC 2006 |
Does your teenage stepdaughter need to find work next year?
|
jep
|
|
response 102 of 176:
|
Mar 16 16:28 UTC 2006 |
I expect she will, yes.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 103 of 176:
|
Mar 16 16:33 UTC 2006 |
Why? (if you dont mine me asking)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 104 of 176:
|
Mar 16 17:12 UTC 2006 |
This has the potential to be good news for my household... Apparently
last time they raised the minimum wage hubby's company raised their pay
by the same amount.
|
klg
|
|
response 105 of 176:
|
Mar 16 17:25 UTC 2006 |
Which demonstrates the insidious nature of such government meddling in
the economy: We can identify those who benefit, but can't determine
the losers in terms of fewer jobs, fewer hours worked, and higher
prices paid by everybody.
|
twenex
|
|
response 106 of 176:
|
Mar 16 17:57 UTC 2006 |
Gee, could that be because there ARE no losers?
|
keesan
|
|
response 107 of 176:
|
Mar 16 18:31 UTC 2006 |
Is your teenaged stepdaughter trying to earn her college tuition, John?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 108 of 176:
|
Mar 16 18:32 UTC 2006 |
Of course there are losers. Artificially raised wages cause
artificially raised prices. Socialism drives inflation, and in the end,
inflation kills socialism.
Game over.
|
twenex
|
|
response 109 of 176:
|
Mar 16 18:35 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, it's SO much cheaper to give people government handouts.
|
twenex
|
|
response 110 of 176:
|
Mar 16 18:40 UTC 2006 |
The UK didn't have a minimum wage until recently. When it was introduced, the
Confederation of British Industry blathered on about the loss of jobs it would
cause, too. Somewhat amazingly*, despite its introduction, that never
happened.
*Unless, of course, you're full of shit.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 111 of 176:
|
Mar 16 18:56 UTC 2006 |
ok, And?
|
twenex
|
|
response 112 of 176:
|
Mar 16 19:05 UTC 2006 |
So, are the laws of physics somehow different in the US?
|