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.
Well, I guess if it follows for a person that minimum wage is slavery, then of course business must also be labor.
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.
They also raise the spending power of consumers, and so the gain by employers. It stimulates the economy.
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.
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?
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.
That isn't true in practice.
Why? Companies exist while inequality increases. They could pay more to employees.
They also raise the spending power of consumers, and so the gain by employers.
Why does increasing the wage of the employee increase the wage of the product?
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.
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 -
If he resists sufficiently, yes, he will be shot for even the slightest infraction (see: David Koresh).
The government will never say, "Well, sir, you're that serious about the matter, never mind...."
Well-to-do white man talking.
A police officer who shoots a man for resisting arrest will be exonerated.
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.
I've taken clear positions on every point, and have shifted no goalposts.
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.
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).
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.
I'll tell you this: any possible influence is smoke and mirrors.
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?