|
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 18:09 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
I still don't see how a minimum wage impacts what you wrote, except in that it gives an unskilled laborer a chance to make at least $5.75 an hour instead of less.
I used to make minimum wage when I was fresh out of high school, and I was glad that it wasn't less.
Quote:
Those abuses for the most part were short-lived (in the big scheme of things) and the dynamics of the workforce continually change as specialization of skills affects the supply and demand equation.
No, those abuses go on to this day all around the world. And they existed for centuries before. Seriously …
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 20:41 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
No, those abuses go on to this day all around the world. And they existed for centuries before Among unskilled labor, and for the very reasons I cited. Their labor isn't worth as much and to certain extent they are at the mercy of what is a buyers market.
If i was an unskilled laborer and I was jockeying for one of the few positions open over at eh dirt factory, one of my negotiating tactics could potentially be that I am willing to do the job for a little less than the other guy. Obviously there's a pinch point there, in which I can't reasonably go any lower, and obviously if the employer bids super low he gets a real knuckledragger instead of a quality employee, but all these are factors that go into the hiring practices of a business. Isn't that how it works with contractors?
Quote:
used to make minimum wage when I was fresh out of high school, and I was glad that it wasn't less. To quote John Stossel "Everybody wants prices to go down, but their wages to go up."
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 21:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Just to stir the pot a bit more, I'd like to throw in a little bit of wisdom from Dr. Williams.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 21:36 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
Employers might be able to substitute capital for labor such as using dishwashing machines instead of dishwashers, automatic elevators instead of elevator operators, self-service gasoline stations rather than full-service gasoline stations, online reservations rather than reservation clerks or relocating their operation overseas.
Well, restaurants need someone to load the machines, as well as clean the sinks, scrub the pots, etc. I know, because I did it in my youth. How many elevators still utilize an operator? How many exclusively full-service gas stations (outside of Jersey) still exist? And online reservations are a part of many hotels and motels. They still need people to man the phones and desks.
Dumb, dumb, dumb examples …
Quote:
Congress can easily mandate higher wages, but they cannot mandate higher worker productivity or that employers hire a particular worker in the first place. Those of us who truly care about the welfare of low-skilled workers should focus our energies on helping them to become more productive, and a good start would be to do something about the rotten education that many receive.
Sure, but you can fire someone who underperforms. Plus, he's right about fixing the education system. But I'm sure that means privatizing the education system, which was solid til the doucebag Reagan began dismantling it.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 22:33 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I think you might also be missing some fact as to how those 'unskilled' are chosen for jobs.
There is no interview or bidding.
A truck pulls up to the parking lot or street corner, the driver hops out and points to how ever many people he needs, at his discretion, for whatever he's shelling out that day.
In storefront type jobs like a shop or restaurant, they're paid under the table and usually given some cramped living arrangements. They're hired or not hired as they walk in. Still no interview or bidding going on.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 01:07 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 183
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
There may be another way...another program that people who haven't paid into it are sucking it dry....welfare maybe? Seriously overhaul the welfare system, boot the abusers, grandfather the actual 'needy', shut it down, pay back everyone who paid in to SS with interest and shut it down as well.
Two lame birds with one stone. not a bad idea,because you and i sure are not going to see this...besides the government needs something to dip into once in a while.... i would like to see this though what do i care... i already am on the presidents policy part of my pay goes to a savings loan you know like a 401k which is probably your alls case too, screw ss, heck they let all kind of people abuse it anyway.... whaaaaa some body lookes at me wrong now my eyes are crossed i need ss..give me a break...then you have people who seriously need it and they have no legs or are blind and are told too bad get to work... i'm not relieing on no one but myself
__________________ i'm telling you the MOAB will solve all our problems  |
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 04:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
A truck pulls up to the parking lot or street corner, the driver hops out and points to how ever many people he needs, at his discretion, for whatever he's shelling out that day.
That mainly happens in the underground economy that the hallowed minimum wage was supposed to get rid of. But whatever selection process is used, some get picked and some get left. It may not be a formal interview, but a lot of unskilled labor jobs don't require a review of skills, just proof that you have a pulse. Been there, done that.
At the risk of repeating myself, it's really quite simple.
1)It's your time, which combined with your skills is a commodity that you trade for compensation. In that sense, it is no different than any other commodity, and in fact, is as much subject to the laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.
2)The wages you agree to should be a private matter between you and your employer, without the state getting involved.
3)You owe it to yourself as an individual to develop that commodity to fetch the highest price you can.
4)Minimum wage laws force affect how many employees someone can hire in the same way higher prices affect how much you can buy in your personal budget.
5)Whatever gains gained by a rise in the wage is soon thereafter swallowed up by an increase in the cost of living. That also affects me as a non-minimum wage earner.
6)Politicians use this fact as a tool to get votes, promising to protect the poor beleaguered voters from the evil rich white men who are looking for an opportunity to put the shaft to them. In an ironic twist, it's usually the politicians who are the real culprits.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 05:11 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Sorry- my employers got more than their money's worth today. Prob can't get into this much tomorrow either, but you guys know where I'm coming from. I think unless we're talking cigarettes or free trade, Cap can represent me here.
The first point I'll make is that teaming hordes of poor people cut each other off in countries where there is no minimum wage all the time. The end result is a lack of a consumer market- which brings no Wal-mart, which means no manager jobs, which means no college for the would be manager's kids, and so on and so on...
You need a minimum standard to jump start a consumer base. Otherwise, a significant amount of poor people don't ever leave the factory to shop and no one sells anything more than those agricultural products that are absolutely required for survival. Notice that we started paying a minimum wage at the dawn of world dominance of the American economy in 1938. 70 years later, it hasn't exactly killed our economy.
Anyway- what I was saying about the time concept is this- a person sells it and it is gone. Even the hardest working person can't produce any more to sell. They might be able to save a dime by moving into the cheapest apartment, they might be able to find the cheapest food. But if they're making even the minimum wage now- that won't matter. They can't work more at Hardee's and be a good parent AND go to school. How many hours are we talking at that point if you're a single mom? If you work hard and are lucky- you might slide into the middle class with some babysitting help. But that is the exception to the rule.
You can get smarter to a point. You can work harder to a point. You can trim your expenses to a point. But nobody gets more time. There, you start with only as much as the rest of the poor people and like you said- THAT is what you're selling and that is for which I say we should pay people a living wage. If you're working as long as the rest of us, you need to be able to make ends meet. That is pulling one's own share- and I personally wouldn't ask more of someone. Others can vote their consciences accordingly; I realize not everyone sees it my way.
American life is designed, in the most ideal of circumstances, to spend 1/3 of your time at work, 1/3 at home and 1/3 sleeping. Get those out of balance too far and bad things start to happen. The kid is starting to screw up, you're barely awake at work, and you start racking up expenses based on mistakes. Furthermore, you're compared at work to other employees who work just as hard, but don't have these problems. You can see how this would not a Bill Gates make.
Bear in mind as well, that to even be poor in this society still takes a car- one of the trickiest things to acquire in the modern world if you start out with nothing. The problem is- if you live in a poor area, you're going to need that car like oxygen to find a place to work. if it breaks down- the next meal could get tricky. If someone else depends on you for a meal- it is a catastrophe.
If you want to get around on the bus- that's a new set of compromises- now a 20 minute drive becomes an hour and a half. Buying groceries instead of fast food is difficult, because you can't carry everything on the bus every day. That is IF you have a bus around. Most American communities don't have much in the way of public transportation- something taken for granted where law makers tend to live.
And as we all know, these problems tend to compound themselves.
As Adam Corolla once said on Loveline "Man, it is really expensive to be poor. You're driving a crappy car that always needs work, you never own anything so your money just disappears into the wind, you're forced to room with other scumbags who screw you on the rent, your lack of insurance means you either pay something you can't afford or lose that toe. Any problem that arises never ends with a lawyer- it ends with court fees you'll never pay off. In the meantime, you're totally disposable and if you screw up once during all that- you're fired." (paraphrased based on memory)
Now of course, the law of averages will tell you that there are some success stories out there. Certainly the smartest and most industrious poor people have a shot at getting out, if they happen to make wise decisions on the first try and they're lucky. I've seen this happen, and I'm proud of folks like this- but I fully recognize they are the exception to the rule... and VERY lucky.
This is why we have a rising tide to lift the boats. This is the reason for having the market work the way it does- because being poor in most societies gets you killed quick. Not surprisingly- THEY don't have a minimum wage. Its all determined by the market.
So this gives us a point of reference for the market in this country. We have a federal reserve, and supposedly the point behind raising and lowering taxes and raising and lowering interest rated is to manage the economy, providing stimulus or cooling it off. That is central planning.
That doesn't mean we're China- but the idea that we don't attempt to manage the economy is false. Likewise, the idea that wealthy people don't get together to wage the same kind of class warfare that labor does is false. Think about it, there are far fewer wealthy people than there are poor people. Why can't they make a deal to make things work in their favor more easily than poor people who all HAVE to work? Why is it that with all the competition between oil companies, the prices always increase, even as more oil is discovered, even as alternative forms of propulsion are discovered? Because on at least some level, they cooperate to all make more money.
Ideally, this is handled with some government trust busting (like we read about happening when they busted up the oil companies the first time in the early 20th century)- but when was the last time you read a headline like that? Even the liberal media doesn't have that story to report!
You asked why everyone doesn't make $5 an hour. The simple answer is because we're not communist, and we're not communist because that doesn't work and is even less fair. Not everyone was destined to make the same amount of money and that is fine. But we have to pay some minimum standard or wages end up on the floor. With as much money as is generated in this country anyway- it seems a shame to starve people. Maybe that seems inefficient (I'll get to that in a minute) but I don't mind putting my tax dollars toward the poor with hopes they'll advance, as opposed to the wealthy who will just find new ways to make me want something, then completely rob me when I try to pay for it.
And regarding capitalism, I'm not complaining- I'm just saying- this is life. Its never easy, but i don't think we should starve people or work them to death when there's so much money just floating around out there, some stolen, some waiting to be taken, and most of it never missed.
One additional point:
I briefly alluded to a moral reason for not making people's lives brutal without reason. But actually, there is a self interested reason- which is why laws and business practices were established in the 40's to ensure we still handle things this way.
Here ya go- the rational counter to supply side economics. Supply-siders say that giving more of our money to wealthy people will benefit us all eventually, because they will choose to spend it on things we sell. I say sure, they PROBABLY will. Few people ever ask themselves about the alternative to supply side economics, because it is the only thing that was ever explained to them.
You see, wealthy people, unlike poor people, have options. They can stick 99% of their money in a mattress (or an overseas company) and be fine, sucking the commerce right out of the market. They might invest in things that don't benefit society, but make a lot of money- like weapons, or giant law firms, or the career of Britney Spears. They might invest in hedgefunds and pressure the market to drop so they can turn a profit. They might hang on to their money when the market is bad- and our businesses dry up. The only chance that things will work as Reagan's people predicted is if the wealthy invest in America, provided that is the best deal (they didn't get to be rich making bad decisions). Sometimes that happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Thus the economy has wild waves and spikes, like we've seen through this decade. If you have the money to invest- you might get rich, provided you get out and stop investing when you hit the top (accounting for the following plummet). Play it wrong and you have to wait for the Democrats to get elected to start climbing back!
GOParty spoke of Bush restoring the economy of the 80's. True, the same policies are yielding the same results, but that is not necessarily a good thing. the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly, despite the fact that everyone is working. That is the worst stat possible: Americans are getting a poor return on their efforts. You only want that economy back if you're wealthy enough to go turn a buck from wild fluctuations, or if you're wealthy enough to influence those fluctuations (look up hedgefunds). You're going to miss out if you're poor.
So what is the alternative? That would be the economies of the 40's, the 50's, the 60's, the 70's and the 90's.
4 out of 5 were unprecedented for excellent financial conditions, especially for the middle class. The 70's saw the rise of OPEC and a host of other poor conditions, such as the end of a war in which we turned no profit but ran up enormous costs. As a nation, we headed toward other methods of fuel and paved the way for the prosperity of the 90's, when the government shrank and oil was often less than a dollar (Peter Tertzakian, "A Million Barrells A Day").
So what made these economies hum along? The lessons of the depression. As a nation, we were obsessed with treating people right and not spending more than we had. We did so individually and as a nation. INSTABILITY was the greatest fear, thus the freak out in the 70's when things became unstable again. Even the Great Society was built into a practical budget that didn't throw the economy out of whack to create instability. Did you know that Lyndon Johnson was the last President before Clinton to balance the budget?
And here's why it works: rich people have a million choices on where to spend their money and not all of them are good for America. Poor people have to spend it exclusively on advancement or services from other Americans.
When we tax rich people, we guarantee that they'll spend money on the American military, roads, and the maintenance of our financial and education systems. When we don't- they can take that money overseas, they can buy off a politician, or they can use their pull to influence the market to work exclusively in their favor.
Even when a poor person blows his money on booze, its still on domestic beer! Take a look around a fancy hotel bar and see what people are drinking: French wines and German lagers- but no Budweiser...
Poor people needing more things to live and more of them living means there's more to sell. You WANT poor people to have some money to spend, because over time, they will spend it on advancement.
We didn't used to drive everywhere in this country, despite automobiles being around for 50 years. But in the early1950's, a new way of paying for things swept the country. "Come on down to the lot and we'll finance you a shiny new Ford!" With poor people, you can keep the money rolling in to a predictable source, in predictable monthly increments, for years upon years with interest- meaning much of that money was earned only by waiting. That beats an economy where no one drives but rich people, even if they run factories in which we all work- making cars.
Of course, the best known case for poor people spending on advancement is college loans. As a society, we encourage people to spend wild amounts of Federal money when there's no guarantee that they'll all be able to make that much, because of the calculated bet on their development. Give a man a Ferrari, and the foreigners who made it will eat for a day. Give Americans a school loan and we'll all eat for a lifetime. And probably vote smarter. These loans don't exist in Africa, because educated people get the hell out of there.
The anti-supply side is simple common sense born of the American experience. Balanced budgets, common humanity, giving people a chance to work and not live in squalor all pay off in the long run and pave the way for prosperity. It is my hope that America rediscovers these principles instead of subscribing to more "get rich quick" economic schemes. You always get what you pay for in the long run.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 15:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
a living wage Socialist buzzword...Danny, you are smarter than this.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 16:39 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
Early christians were socialist in action, though not in name. A little socialism is OK, and not in opposition to democracy or capitalism. Unfettered socialism is bad, as is unfettered capitalism.
I'm sure you disagree, but don't hate on your spiritual ancestors.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 16:53 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I'm sure you disagree, but don't hate on your spiritual ancestors.
Well technically you aren't born a Christian even if your parents are both believers. You get born again later on, but it's not an automatic thing, no whut I mean.
Socialism is bad. I'm all for government helping people help themselves, but I'm not for taking money from one group to give to another. Socialism is often times just a polite word for communism.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 17:15 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Yawn …
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 18:04 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
yawn? 
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 18:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Early christians were socialist in action, though not in name And in keeping with that vein, my wife and I contribute to various causes, The difference being that such participation is voluntary as opposed to state run redistribution schemes which are enforced at the point of a gun. That makes all the difference in the world.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 18:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Amen
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 18:50 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
So, the New Deal policies were bunk?
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 21:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
First of all, we can call these policies whatever we like- that doesn't make them any less moral or practical. I'm asking you to look at my argument, not what other people might have called this or that over the years.
The record speaks for itself. Fiscally sensible, politically balanced policies have propelled this country into wealth beyond imagination at any time previous in the history of the world. When we've taken our chances on quick fix policies, we've reaped what we've sown.
That isn't socialism, it isn't communism. It is sensible economic liberalism and very American- especially as it has been the rule for 70 years. Nobody is "forced to give" any more than they are forced to pay taxes to uphold a military, pave roads or maintain our banking system.
It is understandable that some businesses work to carve out a larger share for themselves, and lobby accordingly with politicians and the public. That is just their nature. That doesn't make their desires correct for the entire country. It needs to be the nature of vigilant voters to remember, we're not just pieces of a company; we're consumers, we're providers, we're tax payers, we're citizens, we're fellow human beings and we're Americans.
In return for allowing people to prosper in return for hard work- which has not been a luxury enjoyed historically- we've all reaped the benefits of an amazing economy and a huge middle class. The business community here and around the world have reaped the benefits of this system as well, because now they have people who can afford their products.
But those are just the practical benefits.
At the end of the day, I think few Americans are okay with the idea that hardworking people can't make enough to support their families and advance in society. I know I'm not.
If someone is too lazy to work- that is something else, but as long as you put in- regardless of IQ, age, gender, race or aptitude- you deserve to be fed, sheltered and to receive an education. If that weren't the case in America- we would be no better than any place else.
We've tried many ways to uphold that standard, and what works has always been the most practical and simple solution- set a minimum number that an employer can pay someone. There are numerous other examples all over the globe of systems that operate to the contrary. Not surprisingly, their results are also in stark contrast to our successes.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2007 21:28 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Well put, Danny.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 16:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
So, the New Deal policies were bunk?
Pretty much, but even if they weren't, then what they became certainly is. It always pans out that way. Somebody builds a safety net, and after a while it becomes a bigger safety net and then a softer safety net and eventually you've got a safety net with barcaloungers and free cable. All done by stealing money from producers to give to non-producers.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 16:30 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
Pretty much, but even if they weren't, then what they became certainly is. It always pans out that way. Somebody builds a safety net, and after a while it becomes a bigger safety net and then a softer safety net and eventually you've got a safety net with barcaloungers and free cable. All done by stealing money from producers to give to non-producers.
So, the economic policies that turned the nation around and spun us out of the depression (cause Hoover's sure didn't) and served the country during WWII and helped generate the greatest economy in history were off?
How so?
Also, more people use the safety net because there are more people. Sure, people abuse it, but people abuse all systems (Enron, anyone? How about Exxon?*). Again, oversight, oversight, oversight.
*Oh, wait, those are private companies, hence they can do what they want. Bullocks.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 16:54 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Nobody is "forced to give" any more than they are forced to pay taxes to uphold a military, pave roads or maintain our banking system. There are constitutional enumerated functions and limitations on government. Once you step outside those boundaries, you are overstepping the legitimate functions of government and forcing people through our regressive tax system to support extra-constitutional functions. It doesn't matter how long the government has been overstepping its bounds, all that matters is that it has.
And while being civil, I must take to task the terms 'working families', 'hardworking Americans', and 'working class' and their ilk. Implied in those words is the idea that other classes do not work, and that unless you're at the bottom of the economic rung and engaging in manual labor, you're somehow less noble. Do you really think the heart surgeon works less than the ditch digger? It's a different type of work, but I promise you, a CEO making 6 digits is not getting off at 4 to go have a cold one. Every CEO I've known that is any good at it works long hours, late nights, weekends, holidays, and is rewarded for it.
Quote:
In return for allowing people to prosper in return for hard work- Danny, I'm going to assume that you meant to phrase that differently, because to my libertarian ears it sounds quite sinister, and I know you're not a sinister guy. We don't ALLOW people to prosper, it is their natural right to profit from their labors. If anything we punish producers and achievers in this country with confiscatory taxes.
No, the New Deal did not pull us out of the Depression. Redistribution of a set amount of wealth never does. WWII pulled us out of the Depression.
I wonder how close we are sometimes to an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 17:03 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
No, the New Deal did not pull us out of the Depression. Redistribution of a set amount of wealth never does. WWII pulled us out of the Depression.
You're dead wrong, and I expect you to have a simple grasp of history. We were on a solid upswing by the mid-30s, though unemployment remained high. We boomed because the war, but the depression was well on its way out by 1941.
Also, what caused the depression? Libertarian laissez fairre policies from the Coolidge administration.
Seriously, read a history book that hasn't been written by the heritage foundation or some hack ann rand clone.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 17:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Holy Moses- the icons are OUT OF CONTROL.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 17:20 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Yeah, I wish Tim wasn't so liberal with them. They need to be controlled.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 17:40 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Holy Moses- the icons are OUT OF CONTROL. What you don't like them either. 
what, too many choices?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 17:57 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
nah, too much cartoonery …
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 18:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I like good natured humor though. especially slapstick. I'm a big 3 stooges fan.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 18:01 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
I'm a big 3 stooges fan.
Well, we agree on something. My pops and I would watch 3 stooges for hours when I was a kid.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2007 18:02 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Sorry for the weird editing- I'm on the run...
Quote:
And while being civil, I must take to task the terms 'working
families', 'hardworking Americans', and 'working class' and their ilk.
Implied in those words is the idea that other classes do not work, and
that unless you're at the bottom of the economic rung and engaging in manual
labor, you're somehow less noble.
Nothing implied from me. Just about everyone works hard in our society.
Especially when you talk to people in other countries- we work ALL the time
here. Those of us who can, should probably learn to relax and make do with
less junk if anything.
But with regard to who gets recognized for it- that matters, but is somewhat
of a different issue.
We can take it back to selling one's time. If you've sold your time to
keep existing, you should be assured at least that much as compensation.
Otherwise, why bother? Some people don't, and we end up with calculated risk
takers soaking up welfare, or selling things other than time.
This society tries to ensure that people get what they bargain for as a
matter of upholding our system. For instance- when you put your money in a
bank, they have to give it back to you as per the deal.
This sort of regulation has both individual and larger practical benefits.
Seriously, think about places that DON'T work this way- like Africa.
Many times, I hear people of a more conservative mindset long for the good ole
days just after the founding of the country, in which there was less taxation,
more individual responsibility and presumably more personal freedom.
We should always chase the ideals of our founders and I think liberitarians
are a crucial component of doing so that our current two party system has
missed since at least the 80's, if not the 30's.
However, one MUST accept that times have changed. We are far more connected
than that band of people, who were all in one occupation, from one
ethnic group, and almost all surviving on the edge of civilization. From
the 1850's on- our day to day has been organized completely differently. Not
to mention that even then- liberty was not extended to everyone and
work was definitly harder than sacking fries or sitting at a desk.
Quote:
We don't ALLOW people to prosper, it is their natural right to profit
from their labors. If anything we punish producers and achievers in this
country with confiscatory taxes. There's nothing sinister
about this not being true. Ayn Rand always misses one crucial point:
Anyone who does well in this society (or really any society) has to
do so with the help and consent of other people.
Even something as pure as farming thrived on slavery and indentured
servitude and was quickly replaced with sharecropping, then
corporations after the end of slavery. Small family farms without help
barely eked out a living and seldom produced enough to keep everyone alive,
especially regarding as much work as it took. The division of labor in this
process is terrible, and the odds of profit are worse (it has to rain just
enough on your land and nobody elses). I say this as someone who
missed growing up on the family farm by one generation. You'll never
meet a former CPA more excited about his career than my father.
(Who by the way, ran his operation entirely by himself with help from his
sons. ALL the education he needed to becoem a CPA was covered by the state
during a time when we taxed wealthy people around 90% of their annual
income.)
I remember long ago when reading Anthem, that the main character built a
light bulb and got into trouble for it. He was supposed to be a street
sweeper. I recall wondering how he put together a light bulb out of...
nothing. I knew how a light bulb worked, but the parts- even the most raw of
materials, must come from somewhere and be constructed by someone. Even if
Thomas Edison blew his own glass, he had to learn that trick from someone.
In the end- if memory serves, the character from Anthem ended up living
in the abandoned ruins of our civilization with his hot blonde
girlfriend. Not bad- but this wasn't a testement of his personal ability any
more than it was freeloading off our ruins!
The real moral of the story is that modern life, usually not being
nasty, brutish or short here in the west- means an integatred system by which
we all work to gether for our indiviual ends. None of us are that
different, so it usually works out well. However, if anybody wants to go
really Ted Nugent about civilazation and insist that they subside without
ANY influence or control upon themselves from others- there's always a fresh
start waiting in Africa!
|
|
