Political discussion thread

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People do not live "perfectly" fulfilled lives without housing or a job. How do you know? I don't agree with your definition of basic needs, but fine, for the sake of argument I will change that part. So you would agree with the statement: "Other people should be forced  to provide the basic needs of those who cannot afford them at their own expense." As we scale up the definition of basic needs (what is considered a need now is more expensive than what was considered a need 100 years ago) and as the population increases, is it not conceivable that this financial cost could exceed the income of those still working?  There is nothing about this policy that is wealth creating, and forcing people to simply give things away without compensation is a disincentive for work and make it harder for companies to succeed. Haven't countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland demonstrated what happens when you treat money as if it grows on trees and give generous handouts to the population at the expense of those who add value to the economy?

Yes, I agree with the statement that as a society (and as a productive member of society that includes myself), we should provide for the basic needs of those who cannot provide for themselves.  However, while I do agree with that statement, it is getting far away from my original statement, that through economic coercion, employers, landlords, banks, etc. do exert regulatory control over people's lives.  For example, more and more employers are requiring credit checks and drug testing pre-employment.  First off, what I do with the money I make from them is my business and my business alone.  They should not concern themselves with whether or not I pay the "man" what he is "due".   Second, what I do in my off-time is also my business.  If I want to blow my paycheck every week on crack, as long as that doesn't affect my job performance (ok, I do realize being a crack addict would probably affect my job performance) it is none of my employer's business.  Period.  However, they can exert that type of control over MY life, now.

thellama73 wrote: Since they are employing you at their discretion, I see no reason why they should not put anything they like in the contract. Likewise, you can demand anything you like from them in your contract. They are, of course, free to reject your offer, and you are free to reject theirs. Employment is not a one sided agreement. Companies need workers as much as workers need companies. Right now, there are more workers than companies largely due to wrongheaded government policies. There have been plenty of periods in history where there were not enough workers to go around and so companies were largely at the mercy of what the employees demanded from them. If the minimum wage were increased as you desire, this would only give companies more power over their employees, since more people would be clamoring for those higher paying jobs.

King of Loss wrote: thellama73 wrote: Since they are employing you at their discretion, I see no reason why they should not put anything they like in the contract. Likewise, you can demand anything you like from them in your contract. They are, of course, free to reject your offer, and you are free to reject theirs. Employment is not a one sided agreement. Companies need workers as much as workers need companies. Right now, there are more workers than companies largely due to wrongheaded government policies. There have been plenty of periods in history where there were not enough workers to go around and so companies were largely at the mercy of what the employees demanded from them. If the minimum wage were increased as you desire, this would only give companies more power over their employees, since more people would be clamoring for those higher paying jobs. I would like to add to this. In a country like Denmark, they have very high minimum wages for certain professions. The prices of the products that would otherwise be cheaper if they had lower minimum wage laws are adjusted to reflect the higher wages. Higher minimum wages are often passed onto the customer, negatively affecting each person's purchasing power.

Denmark also has the lowest level of income inequality and therefore a better standard of living for most of the population. 

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/are-living-standards-higher-in-denmark-or-the-united-states/

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Since they are employing you at their discretion, I see no reason why they should not put anything they like in the contract. Likewise, you can demand anything you like from them in your contract. They are, of course, free to reject your offer, and you are free to reject theirs. Employment is not a one sided agreement. Companies need workers as much as workers need companies. Right now, there are more workers than companies largely due to wrongheaded government policies. There have been plenty of periods in history where there were not enough workers to go around and so companies were largely at the mercy of what the employees demanded from them. If the minimum wage were increased as you desire, this would only give companies more power over their employees, since more people would be clamoring for those higher paying jobs. I am not FREE to reject their offer, if my choice is between work for them, or go homeless and starve.  They have much more freedom and much more power over me than I have over them.  They can make unreasonable demands and I may have absolutely zero choice in the matter.  If I, on the other hand, make even reasonable demands, I would probably be shown the door.

That is a false dichotomy. No one living on the streets is starving in this country. It is a perfectly reasonable choice to make if you find the demands of all possible employers unacceptable. In an episode of Stephen Fry's America, he talks to some homeless men who admit to voluntarily giving up their jobs and mortgages to live on the streets because they like it better. They do just fine and are happier for it. They are not benefited be people like you telling them what they should want.

If that option is unacceptable, it is free to set up an internet business. Look at some of the stuff they sell on Etsy. It requires no talent to make, and a lot of these people make very good money off of it. The possibilities are endless, but you are upset because you can't have any option you want on exactly your terms.

Also, income inequality is not closely correlated with standard of living. If everyone has zero dollars, they have perfect income equality but no standard of living.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Since they are employing you at their discretion, I see no reason why they should not put anything they like in the contract. Likewise, you can demand anything you like from them in your contract. They are, of course, free to reject your offer, and you are free to reject theirs. Employment is not a one sided agreement. Companies need workers as much as workers need companies. Right now, there are more workers than companies largely due to wrongheaded government policies. There have been plenty of periods in history where there were not enough workers to go around and so companies were largely at the mercy of what the employees demanded from them. If the minimum wage were increased as you desire, this would only give companies more power over their employees, since more people would be clamoring for those higher paying jobs. I am not FREE to reject their offer, if my choice is between work for them, or go homeless and starve.  They have much more freedom and much more power over me than I have over them.  They can make unreasonable demands and I may have absolutely zero choice in the matter.  If I, on the other hand, make even reasonable demands, I would probably be shown the door. That is a false dichotomy. No one living on the streets is starving in this country. It is a perfectly reasonable choice to make if you find the demands of all possible employers unacceptable. In an episode of Stephen Fry's America, he talks to some homeless men who admit to voluntarily giving up their jobs and mortgages to live on the streets because they like it better. They do just fine and are happier for it. They are not benefited be people like you telling them what they should want. If that option is unacceptable, it is free to set up an internet business. Look at some of the stuff they sell on Etsy. It requires no talent to make, and a lot of these people make very good money off of it. The possibilities are endless, but you are upset because you can't have any option you want on exactly your terms. Also, income inequality is not closely correlated with standard of living. If everyone has zero dollars, they have perfect income equality but no standard of living.

You are right.  I do not think I should have to bow to some rich person's demands on my personal life, nor should I have to suffer for it.  Period.  Call it what you will.  I do not want some private individual making private decisions for me.  Nor do I want to go homeless, live on the streets, etc. because of that.  Freedom is NOT having your boss (outside of the strict confines of work), your landlord, your bank or any other rich person telling you how to live your life.  Freedom is the ability to exist in this society as an individual, with individual freedom to choose how you live your life (and not the choice between bowing to the demands of those with power or live outside of society).


Edited by The Doctor - October 14 2012 at 16:00

thellama73 wrote: Since you have admitted you just want to be given anything you want without having to pay for it, there's not really any point in continuing the discussion. There can never be any common ground between us.

Where did I say I wanted anything I want given to me without having to pay for it?  I have a job, I make money, I buy things. But,  you think I should have to bow and scrape to our rich masters and beg them for a job, a home, etc. and do anything and everything they want in return for being allowed the "privilege" of working for them, renting an apartment, etc..  But you are right, there can never be any common ground between us.  You are a social darwinist, and I believe in economic fairness. 

Why not throw caution to the wind and admit that you would like to see a time when women could be forced to sleep with their potential bosses if they wanted the job.  After all, that would be a "voluntary" interaction.

Edited by The Doctor - October 14 2012 at 16:30

The Doctor wrote: Why not throw caution to the wind and admit that you would like to see a time when women would be forced to sleep with their potential bosses if they wanted the job.  After all, that would be a "voluntary" interaction.

I don't believe anyone should be forced to do anything. If an employer (male or female) wishes to specify sexual intercourse as a condition of employment (I suspect many already do, albeit not officially), I think that should be their choice. I would hope no one would work for that company, though.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Why not throw caution to the wind and admit that you would like to see a time when women would be forced to sleep with their potential bosses if they wanted the job.  After all, that would be a "voluntary" interaction. I don't believe anyone should be forced to do anything. If an employer (male or female) wishes to specify sexual intercourse as a condition of employment (I suspect many already do, albeit not officially), I think that should be their choice. I would hope no one would work for that company, though.

 

Edited by akamaisondufromage - October 14 2012 at 16:49