Minimum Wage Stuck in the 1950s

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Given that businesses have to stay profitable to exist,


Well, of course, unless your talking about the short run.

Umm... we're not. But people that run businesses generally think further ahead, otherwise they don't run businesses for long.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

1. The problem here is that when things (housing in over-hyped markets, unskilled labor) cost more than they're worth people find market alternatives (rent, checkout machines which each eliminate 3 clerks).

Artificially inflating labor prices just encourages automation, moving jobs over-seas, and position consolidation all of which eliminate jobs.

2. While it might be nice to work just 40 hours a week, financial pressure from things like low cost labor overseas means that isn't a reality for many of us.

Well said, Drew.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I could give a shit about the person that thinks they're entitled to the earnings gained by the hard work of the above mentioned people.

I find it hilarious that so many millionaires think they earned their money entirely by themselves.

80% of millionaires in the US are "first generation" wealthy. Source: "The Millionaire Next Door".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I could give a shit about the person that thinks they're entitled to the earnings gained by the hard work of the above mentioned people.

I find it hilarious that so many millionaires think they earned their money entirely by themselves.

80% of millionaires in the US are "first generation" wealthy. Source: "The Millionaire Next Door".

And of those, what percentage do you think have never benefitted from government infrastructure to create that wealth? First generation or not, as far as I can see, they all have and will continue to do so.

A lot of folks think the 5% at the top is somehow unfairly paying taxes above the 95%. I'd say that the 5% would NEVER be where they are if it wasn't for the 95% supporting them getting where they are.

I suppose there are exceptions, but I can't really think of any.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Everyone has equal opportunity to use public infrastructure (roads, fire, cops, libraries, etc) to get rich. That's why they call it public. Millionaires paid into those facilities too. Why do you seek to diminish their accomplishments?

As another poster mentioned, 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. They didn't get that way by complaining that they were supporting other people's wealth- they went out and made their own.

[quade 4]

Quote

As another poster mentioned, 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. They didn't get that way by complaining that they were supporting other people's wealth- they went out and made their own.

Really? How?

Tell me the precise way anyone makes a million dollars without the assistance of lots of other people?

Let's say I write a book. Ok, wow, that certainly SEEMS like the work of one person doesn't it? Well, writing it was, but certainly not selling enough copies to make me a millionaire. It takes thousands of people to sell that book and it all takes government infrastructure to make that happen. Further, if thousands upon thousands of people don't support me and buy the book, where does the money come from?

So, tell me again how anybody makes a million dollars all by themselves?

Again, the US GIVES people the opportunity to make the money. But don't be so naive as to think anyone makes it by themselves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

Odds are they had much assistance in learning to write also.

[quade 4]

Quote

Odds are they had much assistance in learning to write also.

And chances are the trees used to create the paper were grown on government land.

The list goes on and on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

As another poster mentioned, 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. They didn't get that way by complaining that they were supporting other people's wealth- they went out and made their own.

Really? How?

Tell me the precise way anyone makes a million dollars without the assistance of lots of other people?

Let's say I write a book. Ok, wow, that certainly SEEMS like the work of one person doesn't it? Well, writing it was, but certainly not selling enough copies to make me a millionaire. It takes thousands of people to sell that book and it all takes government infrastructure to make that happen. Further, if thousands upon thousands of people doesn't support me and buy the book, where does the money come from?

So, tell me again how anybody makes a million dollars all by themselves?

Are you trying to say that people bought and sold the books for the benefit of the author? That they we're doing him a favor? They their actions were a noble gesture to support the author?

Seriously?

They bought the book for the same reason he wrote it - to benefit themselves. People sold the books for the same reason the shops hired the people that sold the books - both parties benefit.

So if everyone's actions are in their own self interest, why does he owe them a thing?

[quade 4]

Quote

Are you trying to say that people bought and sold the books for the benefit of the author?

Of course not. Very few people are as altruistic as to simply be a patron of the arts. Sure, that happens too, but the 95% can't usually afford to do that.

That said, are you telling me that people DON'T buy products based on Trademarks? That Miley Cyrus couldn't lay a dump on the sidewalk and somebody else (ok Disney) wouldn't try to make a profit off it?

You're fooling yourself. Branding works because people like the product and they support it with dollars. It's not because the product is even "better" just that it's more "popular" and that's due in large part to marketing (yet more people in the mix).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

>Everyone has equal opportunity to use public infrastructure (roads, fire, cops, libraries, etc) to get rich. That's why they call it public. Millionaires paid into those facilities too.

Ok so we have established that they didn't do it on their own, then, because they 1) used public infrastructure and 2) they werent the only ones who paid for it, let alone were they the only ones who put forth effort into creating those public goods.

>As another poster mentioned, 80% of millionaires are first generation rich.

So, then, 20% of them obtained their wealth by the work of another generation. Doesn't sound like they "accomplished" much other than inheritence.

What about the other 80%? How are we to say that they did it alone? How many of them employed other people? How many of them sold property to another person looking to obtain capital for themselves? How many of them earned their "wealth" through theft? (Gates) How many of them won the lottery?

>they went out and made their own

MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaybe.... Not lookin too good though.

[chasteh 0]

>their actions were a noble gesture to support the author?

What, are you saying that they did it because it would be "illegal" to steal it instead? So much is extremely unlikely given tools such as Napster, Kazaa, etc.

There must be some other reason they did it. Like paying for services. But....wait... that would mean that they did it to benefit the provider of that service/product.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>their actions were a noble gesture to support the author?

What, are you saying that they did it because it would be "illegal" to steal it instead? So much is extremely unlikely given tools such as Napster, Kazaa, etc.

There must be some other reason they did it. Like paying for services. But....wait... that would mean that they did it to benefit the provider of that service/product.

While it may have the effect of benefiting the provider of that service or product, that isn't why they made the purchase. They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it. (except maybe for the Mac drones )

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

And chances are the trees used to create the paper were grown on government land.

Oh fuck-da trees are keepin the poor man down. How long are you dragging this farce of a position along. Yes, the rich man didn't mix his own ink and print his own money-laborers did manual work, of office drones closed deals if a product or service wasn't involved. Guess what-they got paid. Minimum wage or more depending what the job market determined their work was worth. Don't like your level-improve your skill set. I did, without formal school, without financial aid. It's called work and desire and focus and sacrifice and it's still the best way to get ahead. Increase your own earning power or eat the ramens and shut the fuck up. It really is a choice most of the time.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[mnealtx 0]

You mean it's not a RIGHT to get a 50k/year job straight out of high school?

Oh, the horror!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[champu 1]

People who make more (presumably by playing "the game" better) pay more in taxes to keep the game going. That's in their best interest, because they're good at the game. I'm completely fine with that.

Beyond that, though, successful people don't owe anyone anything. The employee does work, the employee gets paid, end of transaction. The successful person gets ahead and, in the case of unskilled labor, the employee doesn't have to think too hard. If the employer chooses to do bonuses or perks or something to keep people working happily, that may be in everyone's best interests.

Now... having no labor laws is a bad idea. I think we've learned that. I think we can definitely find common ground in things like workplace health and safety. I don't even have too much heartburn over the idea of a minimum wage to keep employers from banding together to deflate the cost of labor. What worries me is when rules to protect the worker (some written, some de facto as a result of a litigious society) stack up to create ridiculous situations. Like a person you have to pay more than they're worth and can't fire unless they commit a felony on the job.

There's no end to the havoc you can wreak by tweaking nuts and bolts of a system in ways that seem rewording if you don't re-examine the big picture now and again.

[chasteh 0]

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it.

And they could have stolen it instead. Why the difference? Because of laws? See the earlier post.

[quade 4]

Quote

People who make more (presumably by playing "the game" better) pay more in taxes to keep the game going. That's in their best interest, because they're good at the game. I'm completely fine with that.

Beyond that, though, successful people don't owe anyone anything.

I disagree. The super rich owe society/government/"the little people" more because the super rich are benefitting more. That should be fairly obvious by their bank account.

I'm not stating this in regards to taxes but just in general.

I use to work for a rich guy. He would have questionably legal prayer meetings and even at regular meetings he'd sometimes just burst into prayer to thank God for his success and the good Lord's blessings as if he alone had been chosen out of the masses to become wealthy (even though he was the third generation owner of the company).

What I found hilarious was that not ONCE did I ever hear him recognize the minions below him. He really had convinced himself that he alone was responsible for his success.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it.

And they could have stolen it instead. Why the difference? Because of laws? See the earlier post.

It sure wasn't to 'benefit the provider'. If they wanted to do that, they'd make a donation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

That should be fairly obvious by their bank account.

So, from what I hear, you're a good video guy. So, you probably get more requests to shoot video than someone who sucks. So, you make more money at it than the 50 jump dz rat with the 3rd hand gear. Lets give half of the money you make to him. Never mind that he doesn't take the time to work on his flying, video, or editing skills. Forget that he spends his money on things besides jumps and good equipment. You have more so you must owe him. It's not like you did anything extra to become good. It has nothing to do with your desire or work. It's only because of the guy off the interstate that pumped the gas for the truck that delivered your camera. You haven't earned and don't deserve anything.

Do you?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[chasteh 0]

>It sure wasn't to 'benefit the provider'

Really? My hypothesis is that they wanted to pay the person for the services that were provided. Donations don't quite accomplish that goal.

Neither does simply saying they "wanted the product."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>It sure wasn't to 'benefit the provider'

Really? My hypothesis is that they wanted to pay the person for the services that were provided. Donations don't quite accomplish that goal.

Neither does simply saying they "wanted the product."

Ask 10 random people coming out of a store "Did you buy that because you wanted/needed it, or did you buy it to benefit company x?" I'll guarantee you my reasoning matches at least 9 of the answers.

Ask the same 10 people why they gave their server a tip, and you'll get the 9 matches.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chasteh 0]

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it

That's it, meaning if 10 went into a store then 10 would have that response.

Thats different from 9 out of 10. Hell, there only needs to be one for my hypothesis to show that the person earning the money received it from another person willing to support them for their services.

I rest my case.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it

That's it, meaning if 10 went into a store then 10 would have that response.

Thats different from 9 out of 10. Hell, there only needs to be one for my hypothesis to show that the person earning the money received it from another person willing to support them for their services.

I rest my case.

You should, if you're having to grasp at straws THAT desperately.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chasteh 0]

You surely left us an indication that your being convinced otherwise. Before you were saying that it is done purely on self-interest, and now you have changed your hypothesis within a few posts on an online forum? You must not have been so prepared after all.

Ever seen Twelve angry men? One down.