9 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf you think she should be paid more than 60 cents an hour, then go ahead and pay her more. Nobody's stopping you.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Everyone [...] would be free of apprehension about their financial security. That apprehension is one of the things that drives productivity and keeps down costs, though, which would, under your "changes", lead to inefficiency in peoples' personal lives. The resources we have available would diminish, because huma lf out of it and find some kind of respite from whatever demons propel you. I'm serious.
At least I don't live with my relatives any more. I'm educating inner city youth of color. I'm teaching them how to be valuable individuals so that they'll be worth more than low end wages. I'm doing this instead of what I'd like to be doing (sitting on my ass playing computer games) because I need to pay the bills. I want money.
Therefore I'm in povery alleviation too! But I manage to get paid for it because the principal (a woman of color) values what I can contribute. Not only that, I am not part of the poverty problem that needs alleviation.
Soon I'll be working full time while also attending a program for my Master's in Education (big name private school, my company paying my tuition). That's a LOT of time I'll be working; 60 hours a week seems perfectly possible. Why do it? Why does this person in the shoe factory work those hours? Because we need the money.
Good luck finding people to work those kinds of hours if taxes pay everyone's rent, medical needs and other necessities! I'm willing to do it so I can be secure and accumulate the resources (i.e. SAVE, that's the money you think I need to give away to the poor for nothing) to do things like make microloans to third world businesspeople...who need the money.
http://kiva.org/
You, on the other hand, live with your sister and are ashamed to discuss exactly what it is you do besides vague phrases like "poverty alleviation". You lash out and attack the world as it is but provide no solution to the problems and people you attack so viciously.
Give me a year and I may very well be doing more for the poor of Indonesia than you.
Originally posted by FMFFMF: It's evaporated
Yes it has: any claim you might have to a moral compass in this matter. Your concept of justice is based on a banal business maxim. 'Pay as little as you can'. You harp on about not redistributing wealth from the productive to the unproductive. And yet you advocate [b]withholding a living wage from productive people and letting the threat of starvation and p ...[text shortened]... ur profoundly dehumanizing perspective on your fellow human beings.[/b]
Wajoma: It hasn't evaporated
FMF: It's evaporated.
Wajoma: It hasn't evaporated
Haha, fun isn't it. My credibilty is rock solid, because it is based on a principle, which is not; as defined by you trying to put words in my mouth i.e. "pay as little as you can", but that the prime evil is the initiation of force, threats of force and fraud. I do not condemn benevolence, but recognise it is only possible when it is voluntary.
Again trying to put words in my mouth i.e."and yet you advocate with holding a living wage" Surely you can see how ludicrous that exageration is. Your friend goes to work for $6.25 a day dying wage?
My suggestion was not made smugly or tritely (FMF: "yes it was" Wajoma: "No it wasn't" FMF: "yes it was"😉 If profits are so...?...out of balance? then you would have no problem undercutting and taking over the market, all the time paying $10.00 a day or $12.00 a day.
Become a productive individual, and by doing it for 0% profit you can sacrifice yourself on the altar of altruism (possibly a degree of smugness there :^)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat on earth are you talking about?
At least I don't live with my relatives any more. [...] You, on the other hand, live with your sister ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Give me a year and I may very well be doing more for the poor of Indonesia than you.
This is wonderful news. I'll start telling the Indonesians about you.
3 edits
Originally posted by WajomaTalking of putting words in somebody else's mouth: when did I talk about anybody doing anything for 0% profit ? Reducing what I am saying to a false absurdity is what makes you come across as a bit of a pompous lightweight. Where did the "0% profit" thing come from? You brought it up. What are you referring to? When did I advocate profitless commerce?
Become a productive individual, and by doing it for 0% profit you can sacrifice yourself on the altar of altruism (possibly a degree of smugness there :^)
Originally posted by A ThousandYoung
Good luck finding people to work those kinds of hours if taxes pay everyone's rent, medical needs and other necessities!
When did I talk about "taxes [paying] everyone's rent, medical needs and other necessities"? Which part of which one of my posts put forward any argument remotely like that? Good luck with your Masters Degree but if in the assignments you produce you're able to get away with reducing opposing concepts down to such stark absurdities ("taxes paying everyone's rent, medical needs and other necessities" versus 'paying people any more than as little as possible "...will suppress peoples' motivation to work and make money"...better to keep them apprehensive', and the seemingly politically autistic "If you're not a capitalist, and you're not a communist, then what are you?" ) then I would respectfully suggest that, intellectually speaking, your Degree is Mickey Mouse.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh come on A ThousandYoung! Be fair! When did I ever suggest such a thing? "that's the money you think I need to give away to the poor for nothing" When did I say anything even remotely like this? Why are you misrepresenting what I have been saying?
I'm willing to [work hard] so I can be secure and accumulate the resources (i.e. SAVE, that's the money you think I need to give away to the poor for nothing)...
Originally posted by WajomaWhoops, a little stumble on your part. So, ok, you don't know the meaning of the term "living wage"? Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "dying wage" - you've just made that up, and in so doing displayed your ignorance.
Again trying to put words in my mouth i.e."and yet you advocate with holding a living wage" Surely you can see how ludicrous that exageration is. Your friend goes to work for $6.25 a day dying wage?
Financial remuneration is referred to as a "living wage" if a full-time worker (approx. 8 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week) receives enough to pay for a minimum standard of shelter, food, water, transportation, basic health care. Is it really too much to require Adidas to pay a "living wage" to a full-time worker?
So my point is that $6.25 is less than a "living wage" in Jakarta in 2008. After 60 hours working for Adidas she doesn't have enough money to pay for her shelter, food, water, transportation, or rudimentary health care. These are the economic circumstances you apparently seek to defend with your clumsy "dying wage" quip. My friend has to do some part time work in the evenings and on her one day off. With that (maybe 75 hours of work a week) she is able to tread water. Any little everyday disasters along the way require her to go into debt (there's no 'welfare state' here).
I can assure you it is no "ludicrous exaggeration" to describe $6.25-a-day as less than a "living wage". Your ignorance over this undermines the rest of your 'analysis' I'm afraid, along with your "rock solid credibility" and your ignoble "principles".
5 edits
Originally posted by WajomaI disagree. The perception that the market doesn't follow physical laws is based on the observation that no one can predict the exact nature of an upturn or a downturn or the length and strength of a rally or the size and scope of a bear market or how long a recession lasts or the extent to which that recession may become a depression.
Wealth distribution hasn't got a lot to do with a nuclear meltdown, which is governed by some very strict physical laws, unlike the free market. So either kmaxs analogy was off, you've misinterpreted it or we're going off topic.
But just because we may not be able to quantify the instantaneous behavior does not mean we cannot demonstrate strong causal relationships in the trends.
In aerodynamics for example there is no exact mathematical formulation that can adequately describe the nature of turbulence. Yet that does not stop Boeing and Airbus designing very good wings that can generate enough lift to allow for over 800,000 lbs of flying bus to reliably take off and land.
Years of economic theory and commercial experience has given the great central banks of this world a range of very effective levers with which to control the worlds economies. How the fed controls the money supply is a very exact art, that combines equal parts of mathematical analysis as well as a weighted judgment.
To say the markets are not governed by very strict laws is simply to admit that you are unaware of the laws that affect markets. Because if the Fed were to hike up interest rates right now they know with absolute certainty that it would stall the economy dead in its tracks and that the current credit squeeze fallout would be ongoing, leading to intractable financial collapse, which would probably push America to the brink of large scale irreversible societal breakdown.
Where the science stops and the art begins, is when an institution like the Fed tries to orchestrate a soft landing and makes incremental changes to monitor the degree to which they bite. There is no mystery as to what the levers will do, its just that the sheer scale of it all makes it nigh on impossible to predict all of the outcomes to the highest degree of certainty.
There are many forms of nuclear reactor. An uncontrolled reactor will not explode, but it will overheat and if the core does not meltdown, trying to gain control of the reactor can end up sending a toxic radioactive cloud over the surrounding area. Its about Enriched Uranium being bombarded by neutrons and the chain reactions that ensue when those neutrons cause the uranium atom to split up into smaller atoms plus neutrons which then lead to more reactions taking place. Well if there is no moderator present to slow down the neutrons being fired at the uranium, then in the most common forms of reactor, the neutrons move too fast for the atoms to be split and nothing happens. On the other side of tings, once you have moderated your neutrons to the correct speed, you then need control rods to ensure that things stay nice and controlled. Control rods are usually lifted into and out of the core. The core activity is closely monitored and if the rate of fission in the core increases above an upper bound, then the control rods are lowered back into the core to absorb excess free neutrons until the rate of fission is slowed down to within an acceptable range.
Not very precise either, but they insert them slowly until their telemetry tells them they have the optimal range. Like every system there is a lag between what is asked from the system, and the commanded value of output, being reached. Systems tend to respond by overshooting their desired mark and then settling back to the desired level within a reasonable time.
Problems with reactor cooling systems at three mile island and chernobyl have led to other designs being favored where now water can be used both as a moderator and as well as a control mechanism for the reactor. In this way if you lose your water supply, your reaction simply stops.
I am sorry if in all that you could not find enough detail with which to build an analogy to explain market behavior. It seemed plainly obvious to me.
EDIT : I'd hate to be blunt about it, but I think you may be getting obtuse in your old age.😛
Originally posted by kmax87The people are nuetrons?
I disagree. The perception that the market doesn't follow physical laws is based on the observation that no one can predict the exact nature of an upturn or a downturn or the length and strength of a rally or the size and scope of a bear market or how long a recession lasts or the extent to which that recession may become a depression.
But just because we ...[text shortened]... EDIT : I'd hate to be blunt about it, but I think you may be getting obtuse in your old age.😛
Originally posted by FMFWe both know, that as hard as it may be, there are people living on far less than 6.25 a day in Indonesia. i.e. l i v i n g.
Whoops, a little stumble on your part. So, ok, you don't know the meaning of the term "living wage"? Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "dying wage" - you've just made that up, and in so doing displayed your ignorance.
Financial remuneration is referred to as a "living wage" if a full-time worker (approx. 8 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week) receive ...[text shortened]... g with your "rock solid credibility" and your ignoble "principles".
Your airy fairy definition is so vague as to be useless the difference between 40 hours and 48 hours is something like 20%. All those "minimum standards" are so vague as to be useless. Your vague and useless definition of living wage is of no use to your friend or Adidas who are not in the business of defining undefinable 'living wages'.
My s u g g e s t i o n to start a 0% profit business was just that - a suggestion - not an attempt to put words in your mouth. I admit it was a sarky suggestion. Very few people live truly altruistic lives i.e. selfless lives (to live a selfless life is tantamount to suicide) they are either suffering from a delusion or unable to maintain it for long.
I am selfish and proud enough and honest enough to admit it, a few others here should drop the mask, examine their motives, and fess up.
"Above all else, be true to thine own self"
Originally posted by WajomaOk, so you don't understand the concept of a "living wage". That's fine. A refusal to "understand" it (so to speak) is generating a lot of wealth in America, Europe and Japan by ensuring that as little of that wealth as possible remains with the people whose hard work produces it. On that, I have no doubt, we agree.
I am selfish and proud enough and honest enough to admit it, a few others here should drop the mask, examine their motives, and fess up. "Above all else, be true to thine own self"
Mask? Motives? Confessions?
Do you have some sort of theory? Care to expand?
Originally posted by FMFNot necessarily addressed to you, but to those who claim altruism and denounce selfishness.
Ok, so you don't understand the concept of a "living wage". That's fine. A refusal to "understand" it (so to speak) is generating a lot of wealth in America, Europe and Japan by ensuring that as little of that wealth as possible remains with the people whose hard work produces it. On that, I have no doubt, we agree.
Mask? Motives? Confessions?
Do you have some sort of theory? Care to expand?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhich school? I hope the education is as big as the name. I've worked for the online programs of two private universities in the USA: I can vouch for the abysmal quality of their education. Effectively they're machines for churning out graduates 'because these days you can't get a job without a four-year degree'.
Soon I'll be working full time while also attending a program for my Master's in Education (big name private school, my company paying my tuition). That's a LOT of time I'll be working; 60 hours a week seems perfectly possible. Why do it? Why does this person in the shoe factory work those hours? Because we need the money..
"In the Vindarbha district of Maharashtra state in western India, where Mr Kalamb grew cotton, it is estimated that one farmer commits suicide every eight hours."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/suicide-of-farmer-poet-highlights-the-poverty-trap-in-india-821617.html
How do you incorporate this situation into your argument for or against regulation?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIs this addressed to me? It's unclear.
"In the Vindarbha district of Maharashtra state in western India, where Mr Kalamb grew cotton, it is estimated that one farmer commits suicide every eight hours."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/suicide-of-farmer-poet-highlights-the-poverty-trap-in-india-821617.html
How do you incorporate this situation into your argument for or against regulation?
If it is, two statements from the article hit me in eye.
"...have forced them to compete with subsidised products from other countries."
Subsidies are not 'free market'. They require regulation to implement. Get rid of them.
"When they get into debt ... this is why they are committing suicide...."
What do you propose here? A regulation to stop them taking loans they can't afford to repay, or a regulation that means they don't have to repay loans they can't afford to service.