- Sep 16, 2011
- 10,712
- 654
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
So how has quality of life improved, in terms of products? Medicine, etc?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If prices have gone up, they haven't gained anything. That's called "inflation."
As I said, that isn't true in real life. It's just companies doing whatever they want. There is not perfect competition. [...] Okay, is there proof or reasons beyond statement?
I'm not sure what point either of us are making here.
First...the product is not paid,a wage.Why does increasing the wage of the employee increase the wage of the product? Could it not it come from the lack of increase from the upper middle management?
The average business owner isn't "the richest" by any means.
To use an example mentioned earlier, if a professional basketball player "does his job" excellently, it brings more wealth into the organization than the janitor who does his job excellently. Therefore, he should get a larger raise.
Is that true? I know a good many women who are business owners...I would never have thought that being women meant they didn't understand what profit was.
Why do you think so?
You realize that money doesn't just "sit" in banks, right? You realize that bank deposits are going into society, right?
But you seem to have moved the goalpost--you were talking about linked wages before, now you're just talking about "good" pay.
You moved that goalpost again. Now you're talking about free time. When you say "free time," are you talking about real "free" time, or are you talking about paid time off?
But it's got to get down to specifics. Like setting up an invasion army. To the generals, it's all divisions and battalions. But at some point, some particular sergeant has to point to some particular solder and say, "You!"
So this is what minimum wage looks like to you?
[picture]
What? Minimum wage does not "assume a centralized ownership of the individual." You know why? Because the individual agrees to do work for a person/company/business for a certain wage. That wage may be the bare minimum or higher. Slavery involves purchasing humans with or without their consent. A worker can quit if they feel their wages are not fair. A slave cannot.Ironically, I agree with that sentiment you quoted. Just not in the same vein as the person intends.
Minimum Wage is slavery, in the sense that its existence depends on misunderstanding rights. To establish minimum wage, one cannot help but assume a centralized ownership of the individual, in the same way that slaves were owned by the plantation of centuries past.
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?
What? Minimum wage does not "assume a centralized ownership of the individual." You know why? Because the individual agrees to a do work for a person/company/business for a certain wage. That wage may be the bare minimum or higher. Slavery involves purchasing humans with or without their consent. A worker can quit if they feel their wages are not fair. A slave cannot.
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?
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.
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.
So the government has ownership of an individual because they establish a minimum that said individual should be paid? That is a line of reasoning that I am comfortable with. I would find it problematic later on if you are consistent in that line of reasoning, however. For example, would you also say that the ability for the government to arrest an individual is evidence of ownership?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 a priori establishment of ownership of the individual by a centralized authority, that being government.
If your question is purely economic...I think this system could force an astonishing number of people into poverty or homelessness. Imagine if a struggling business had its highest paid earners take a 50% pay cut....it's lowest paid might not be able to even put food on the table at 50% less pay.
Abolish minimum wage and abolish slavery.
Why would you think that the government would need to "own" people in order to institute a minimum wage?
So the government has ownership of an individual because they establish a minimum that said individual should be paid? That is a line of reasoning that I am comfortable with. I would find it problematic later on if you are consistent in that line of reasoning, however. For example, would you also say that the ability for the government to arrest an individual is evidence of ownership?
As well, would you advocate for the removal of a minimum wage?
What is the cost of enforcement?
Yes, and yes. Anytime someone says, "there ought be a law..." - what exactly is it they are advocating for? What does happen if one breaks the law? They get arrested and imprisoned. What if they resist? Gunshot to the head, if they're lucky. That is how the system works, regardless of anyone's views on what ought to be.
Are you asking me what it costs to enforce a minimum wage? I'm sure we can find out the budget for fair business practices is if you're interested...
If you're asking what it specifically costs the person who breaks the law...it's a fine depending upon how much they've avoided paying their workers.
This doesn't answer my question though...
I'm going to disagree that everyone who "resists arrest" gets shot...much less shot in the head...but regardless....
Enforcement of the law is necessary for society to function. If you've got any examples of societies which function without laws....I'm more than willing/interested to hear about them...
I mean, how far are you willing to go to enforce the (Minimum Wage) law? What is the enforcement of a law worth to you, that you can have your $15/hr job? Are you willing to go so far as to subject me into prison, and the consequence thereof, because I do not pay you $15/hr?
I never said everyone necessarily does get shot. I'm talking about procedure, not experience or anecdotal stories.
Maybe it is (I'm not promoting a society without laws either), but that doesn't excuse anyone from promoting laws without regard to the activity of their enforcement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?