Connected Wages

[Vyrzaharak]

Well, I guess if it follows for a person that minimum wage is slavery, then of course business must also be labor.

Labor is the act of producing something with economic value, and those that build or invest into a business are laboring every bit as much as those at the bottom.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your wage is not based on profit. Or the increase in profit.

You should be treated equally. The issue is that society has improved economically, but it's been kept to the richest.

The richest get richer as the economy expands, but this doesn't go to the average person.

Actually it goes to above average persons.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They also raise the spending power of consumers, and so the gain by employers. It stimulates the economy.

Actually it doesn't. Much of it goes to retire debt and buy imports.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're misreading what I've stated, albeit not unsurprisingly (not an attack on you, many people misread it). It is not slavery in that business assumes ownership, but in that it is established by a centralized authority, government, claiming ownership. The minimum wage issue cannot exist without establishment of ownership of the individual by a centralized authority, that being government. There is no minimum wage without that, and slavery existed the same way - reliant on centralized, unquestionable authority.

If that were true the thousands of businesses that willingly pay more than the minimum wage (for minimum wage jobs) should be prosecuted by the government.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

If that were true the thousands of businesses that willingly pay more than the minimum wage (for minimum wage jobs) should be prosecuted by the government.

Um, it is to the benefit of the government that businesses pay more. Ever established a small business? When you're hiring an employee, you're never JUST paying the employee. You've to pay for Unemployment, FICA/SSI, and then either you or the employee pays for the progressive income tax... and so much more that often necessitates having an accountant (which brings even more money to the government, through their own employment).

In fact, the continued establishment of the Minimum Wage is hinged upon by all of these other fees. Get rid of the Minimum Wage, and you get rid of every other fee... or don't, and have people like me who love making cash under-the-table, making more money than those that work minimum wage.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

A free labor market is part of a free society.

You are addressing the whole, but the 'whole' of a free society is composed of individuals who exercise their freedom of choice in many areas, including the workplace.

We actually don't have enough information to make informed decisions regarding the wages of workers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Um, it is to the benefit of the government that businesses pay more. Ever established a small business? When you're hiring an employee, you're never JUST paying the employee. You've to pay for Unemployment, FICA/SSI, and then either you or the employee pays for the progressive income tax... and so much more that often necessitates having an accountant (which brings even more money to the government, through their own employment).

That's why I chose to buy rental property. I had none of those problems. And I built value by upgrading and doing most of the work myself. When I did need help I hired a contractor, not an employee.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

That's why I chose to buy rental property. I had none of those problems.

It's why I jump for under-the-table work, and why most small business owners I know are starting to hire contractors instead of employing them. More money all-around, less money to be taken by the government.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That isn't true in practice.

Except that it is. At my previous job, a software consultancy firm, we were with around 30-ish software engineers. We earned less then our peers in other firms. We asked for raises and some of us received it, but they were peanuts. After a few weeks / months of discussions and semi-fights, 10 of them simply left in a timespan of 4 months.

People don't tend to make such impactfull decisions for a couple 10s of dollars. But if as an employer you push it to far, your workforce WILL leave.

It's just like a free market. Do a good job, treat people well, and you'll reap respect and loyalty. Treat them badly or worse then the competition, and they'll leave for other and better jobs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why? Companies exist while inequality increases. They could pay more to employees.

I could pay more for my employees also.
In fact, I "could" take my full wage, cut it up and give it all to my employees.

Why would I?

I took the jump in the dark hole of building this company. I'm the one that took all the risks. I'm the one that's up every night, working till i-don't-know-how-late. I'm the one that does 80-hour weeks and then some during the weekend.

Is it okay with you that I reap the benefits of my hard labour and pay myself 5-fold what I would earn in a 9 to 5 job where I get to only be responsible for the assignments given to me personally and where I don't have to care about it between 5 and 9?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They also raise the spending power of consumers, and so the gain by employers.

And then the employer will still have more money then the workers and people like you again will start complaining about that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why does increasing the wage of the employee increase the wage of the product?

Simple math.

Product prices are set by adding up all production costs + a profit margin.
The wages of workers are production costs.

X + Y = Z

If you increase X, Z is going to increase as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Don't build your castle on another man's land." (I made this up years ago, and my own advice has served me well.) Always be working for yourself, no matter who is paying you.

 

[381465]

Except that it is. At my previous job, a software consultancy firm, we were with around 30-ish software engineers. We earned less then our peers in other firms. We asked for raises and some of us received it, but they were peanuts. After a few weeks / months of discussions and semi-fights, 10 of them simply left in a timespan of 4 months.

People don't tend to make such impactfull decisions for a couple 10s of dollars. But if as an employer you push it to far, your workforce WILL leave.

It's just like a free market. Do a good job, treat people well, and you'll reap respect and loyalty. Treat them badly or worse then the competition, and they'll leave for other and better jobs.

Simple math.

Product prices are set by adding up all production costs + a profit margin.
The wages of workers are production costs.

X + Y = Z

If you increase X, Z is going to increase as well.

I'm sorry, you're being far to reasonable and practical....you must leave now. You're messing up the socialist utopia vibe.

 

[super animator]

There is a trade off in increasing minimal wage:
Increases unemployment
Hurts small business
Besides you are not considering the benefits that a employee received from their company.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Force is immoral due to it being lack of consent. If there is any form of objective ethics (and I'm not saying there is), then consent alone defines the line in the sand. Whatever a man consents to over himself is ethical, whatever he doesn't consent to over himself is unethical, ergo self-owners; everything else is an argument of subjective morality.



No business is forcing an employee to work for them either, yet here you are.



Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I said.



What makes me lucky is the fact I don't live in a country that gets bombed on a daily basis. What makes me lucky is the fact I don't have to worry about my next meal because someone thought my parents were terrorists. What makes me lucky is the fact I live in a country that at one point practiced rugged individualism. The only reason to live in the United States is the knowledge that the United States won't attempt to blow itself up with bombs, that's what makes me 'lucky', not some system that's proclaimed by its fanatics as being 'democratic'.



Firstly, tacit consent is NOT voluntary. Just because I decide to live somewhere does not even remotely imply that I agree to rules, only by explicitly signing a contract that has a clear exit clause can one agree to a rule. Secondly, to leave requires consent to the system itself, and I mean that pragmatically - as there's an Expat tax and the fact your 'democracy' has decided the IRS has full authority over my passport.

But either way, I am going to sit here and refuse to consent to the system since I never signed any explicit contract. If you don't like my refusal to consent, then you have the option of doing something for yourself - whether you decide to remove me by force or leave.



Procedure refers to an objectively-defined activity. Like most criminal terms that don't exclusively govern any public employee, murder is a subjectively-defined proposition.



Same effect regarding the entire point, because both are forms of aggression.

Since I will be going to bed, however, I'll cut this short with a few statements by H.L. Mencken in regards to the myth of democracy -

I didn't want you thinking I just dismissed whatever you're trying to say here...but it's difficult to reply when you avoid taking any position on some points, and completely keep shifting goalposts on other points.

You spent most of your reply here arguing about consent and objective morality...and you made it clear you don't want to argue for some existing objective morality. Did you want a response? It's a fairly poor concept of morality...after all, no one ever consents to being born, so literally every birth under morality as you've described it would be immoral. Also, no one ever killed in self defense explicitly agreed to being killed. It's a pretty bad argument for objective morality, but not the worst I've ever seen.

As for murder, it is objectively defined...but more importantly, the situations which procedurally define when a cop can reasonably shoot someone are well defined. The only thing subjective is whether or not the cop's perceptions at the time of shooting were reasonable.

You can claim that the procedurally defined situations are the problem...but since you don't seem to know them or understand them, you aren't making that argument.

As for luck, I was simply making the point that at least under the system you seem to hate so much, you have some ability to influence and change it. I don't know what kind of system you prefer...but there aren't many that allow you this level of influence, let alone more. Some people just always find room to complain I guess.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If he resists sufficiently, yes, he will be shot for even the slightest infraction (see: David Koresh).

David Koresh the child molesting cult leader who burned his people to ash? What does he have to do with this exactly?

What do you mean by "sufficiently resisting"? I'll agree that if one decides to assault a cop trying to arrest them...they do have a higher chance to get shot, but it's not for their "infraction"...it's because they decided to assault a cop.

The government will never say, "Well, sir, you're that serious about the matter, never mind...."

And? Are you saying the government should stop trying to arrest someone who resists hard enough? What is that point exactly?

As for not arresting someone...believe it or not, it does happen. If a cop tries to pull someone over for speeding...and that person fails to pull over and it leads to a pursuit...in some situations, cops do terminate the pursuit. If, for example, that person decides to go flying through a school zone during school hours...cops will often call it off because the danger to the public is greater than the crime.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well-to-do white man talking.

Meaning what exactly? Because I'm white and well to do my opinion doesn't matter? Or that it's automatically wrong?

A police officer who shoots a man for resisting arrest will be exonerated.

Except when they aren't.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

I didn't want you thinking I just dismissed whatever you're trying to say here...but it's difficult to reply when you avoid taking any position on some points, and completely keep shifting goalposts on other points.

I've taken clear positions on every point, and have shifted no goalposts.

You spent most of your reply here arguing about consent and objective morality...and you made it clear you don't want to argue for some existing objective morality. Did you want a response? It's a fairly poor concept of morality...after all, no one ever consents to being born, so literally every birth under morality as you've described it would be immoral.

I don't believe in objective morality. However, whether morality is objective or not, I draw the line of consent because of the golden rule: "treat others as you would have them treat you." Something any sapient creature is capable of understanding.

To anyone that believes they had no choice in being birth and that therefore makes consent not right, I say to go jump off a cliff and die. Every birth was a choice by the parents, a choice the parents could've chosen not to make.

Also, no one ever killed in self defense explicitly agreed to being killed. It's a pretty bad argument for objective morality, but not the worst I've ever seen.

Those that initiate an action, chose the superiority of that action against all other activities. I'll even go so far as to state that those who refuse to defend themselves despite having the ability have absolutely no basis to complain.

Especially when there are millions more of people who would be more than willing to act, while yet themselves being unable to. Like myself, as a matter of fact, when I was younger and incapable of defending myself: though despite that I was going day-to-day in physical confrontations, despite that I was hit on, thrown bricks at, had my hair pulled, etc., came home with bruises every single day, and I was still told that I shouldn't fight back. Nobody ever punished those other kids, but me? I had to be the peaceful idiot, otherwise, I'd be yelled at and punished even more by the authorities. When I was in the 6th grade, I got into an after-school fight that left me charged for attempted murder and 1st-degree manslaughter by the time I got home (I had kicked their jaw, which resulted in him being unable to breathe and requiring them to puncture a hole in his throat).

As for murder, it is objectively defined...but more importantly, the situations which procedurally define when a cop can reasonably shoot someone are well defined. The only thing subjective is whether or not the cop's perceptions at the time of shooting were reasonable. You can claim that the procedurally defined situations are the problem...but since you don't seem to know them or understand them, you aren't making that argument.

Murder is not an objectively-defined action fitting that of a procedure. An objectively-defined procedure: "if A, do X, then if B, Y, and finally if C, then Z."

There are also clear cases that people do consider the act of self-defense, as being murder.

As for luck, I was simply making the point that at least under the system you seem to hate so much, you have some ability to influence and change it. I don't know what kind of system you prefer...but there aren't many that allow you this level of influence, let alone more. Some people just always find room to complain I guess.

I'll tell you this: any possible influence is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've taken clear positions on every point, and have shifted no goalposts.

You've shifted goalposts in this very post. For example, you're about to tell me you don't believe in objective morality, then you're about to make an objectively moral statement.

I don't believe in objective morality. However, whether morality is objective or not, I draw the line of consent because of the golden rule: "treat others as you would have them treat you." Something any sapient creature is capable of understanding.

If you don't believe in objective morality, then the golden rule is just a subjectively moral opinion...and you've given me no reason to consider it over my own opinions.

To anyone that believes they had no choice in being birth and that therefore makes consent not right, I say to go jump off a cliff and die. Every birth was a choice by the parents, a choice the parents could've chosen not to make.

You're entire argument was about decisions which are being made for you which you did not consent to...your birth would fall under that. Are you now saying that there are situations which are morally good where decisions have been forced upon you without your explicit consent?

Those that initiate an action, chose the superiority of that action against all other activities. I'll even go so far as to state that those who refuse to defend themselves despite having the ability have absolutely no basis to complain.

And yet if I were to attack you and you killed me in self defense...you've done something to me which I didn't consent to (far worse than merely arresting me I might add)...are your actions not immoral?

Especially when there are millions more of people who would be more than willing to act, while yet themselves being unable to. Like myself, as a matter of fact, when I was younger and incapable of defending myself: though despite that I was going day-to-day in physical confrontations, despite that I was hit on, thrown bricks at, had my hair pulled, etc., came home with bruises every single day, and I was still told that I shouldn't fight back. Nobody ever punished those other kids, but me? I had to be the peaceful idiot, otherwise, I'd be yelled at and punished even more by the authorities. When I was in the 6th grade, I got into an after-school fight that left me charged for attempted murder and 1st-degree manslaughter by the time I got home (I had kicked their jaw, which resulted in him being unable to breathe and requiring them to puncture a hole in his throat).

Did the kid die or not? I'm curious how they tried to justify charges of "attempted murder" and "1st degree manslaughter" since the victim would need to be both dead and alive for both charges.

Murder is not an objectively-defined action fitting that of a procedure. An objectively-defined procedure: "if A, do X, then if B, Y, and finally if C, then Z."

It's pretty objectively defined...here's Georgia's legal definition of murder...

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON :: ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE :: § 16-5-1 - Murder; felony murder

Again, more importantly, the police in your state and city have a very specific set of conditions which define, procedurally, when they can and cannot shoot someone. These don't change from case to case...nor from situation to situation...nor person to person.
They couldn't get any more objective.

There are also clear cases that people do consider the act of self-defense, as being murder.

This is one of your goalpost shifts...did you want to talk about anecdotal experiences? Or procedures? Because the procedures are written for all police...irrespective of subjectivity.

I'll tell you this: any possible influence is smoke and mirrors.

That's funny...so no one in the history of the United States has had any influence or the ability to choose the laws and regulations of the nation? What's this mysterious non-personal entity which is guiding the direction of our nation then?