|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted September 29, 2008 08:43 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 08:45, 29 Sep 2008.
|
So this is what an american pays directly? Means, he pays the doctor, the man in the drug store, etc...all by himself?
No wonder the costs are that high. There you see why your system will fail sooner or later. Those high technical machines in a surgery room are pretty expensive. Who will pay them? Only those who get (and can afford) a surgery.
I pay my monthly healthcare related to my income each month. I don't pay for a doctor visit, no pay for a hospital and I have to pay a certain percentage for drugs. Medicine for children are free.
And for the example about the smoker:
I completely agree with that.
Problem is, you can expand this endlessly. For example: Why should I pay for an accident a paraglider suffered? Why should I pay for a man who got injured in a car accident because he was arguing with his wife and didn't pay attention too well?
All these needed surgerys will become much cheaper when all people pay a monthly healthcare, because then, enough money is present to buy/pay all the needed things.
I am glad I will never have to worry about a possible accident or a desease anyone of my family will suffer and then not being able to pay the needed doctors/medicines.
Health care is a basic droit which should not be related to a persons income! (Same counts for education in my eyes!)
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 09:01 AM |
|
|
Well said 
Only to implement such a system in America is going to take more effort and initiative than most will have to support it.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 12:34 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 12:35, 29 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
But the question comes down to this: Would you rather live in a society where people help one another, or live in a society where people with misfunctions are being told to take care of themselves, which essentially comes down to secluding "less worthy" people.
I'd much rather live in the second society. Why should the strong carry the weak? At least economically. I have nothing against altruism and giving to charity, but it shouldn't be forced, and the economic system shouldn't be based on that.
It's called "Social security". It has something to do with a basic standard, ya know  But keep in mind your stance on this point depends on your own position. If you are the weak, you would be all in favour of the idea that the strong carry the weak. You should understand that even the weak have good qualities that are usefull to societies. In your current stance, you are not acknowledging those (and trust me I have SEVERE difficulty admitting these things... If anything I am tempted to say I think the same as you do, but you kind of help me improve as you show me what my way of thinking could extend to xD).
Quote:
Again, no one goes to North Korea for heart surgery. Why's that?
If you choose to compare the quality of USA to North Korea I am tempted to think you don't have very high standards.
Quote:
Quote:
There are things that simply shouldn't be competed for, simply because it actually reduces the quality in order to produce bigger profits (like with your healthcare system).
Hmm... sometimes. But the cost-to-quality ratio improves. Look at the airlines, for example. There used to be heavy controls on the airline industry in the US, and quality was good. Then they were deregulated, and, for some, quality went down. But the prices went down even more, and people became much more able to travel. It's better to be able to travel (more) than to not travel.
It doesn't apply to all, of course. But it certainly applies to Healthcare and insurance.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, you could pay a top executive depending on how much approval rates he gets from the public.
That's a terrible idea. What if he's firing people to cut costs? That won't make him popular, but it may be a good idea in the long run.
I am talking about the quality of the service he provides, not what the people think of how he runs his company.
Quote:
Quote:
How is this any different from the FBI being able to arrest you currently under the suspicion of you being a terrorist?
Not very different, but it gives the government yet another way to do something without actually putting someone in prison.
Where you go wrong is in that you think the government is the public's enemy... You are (supposed to) liv(ing/e) in a democracy where the public IS IN CONTROL. Or technically SHOULD be. Wether or not you think democracy is a bad system is irrelevant - in a democracy the government does not exist to regulate its people, it exists to SERVE its society. I heard something about a major difference between France and USA being that the people in the USA fear their government, whereas in France (and any other European nation) the government fears its people, which is the way it should be. And in extention, if the government gets to the point where it terrorizes its own people (America), then you yourself are to blame for that, since you let it happen and did not acknowledge your own divine right to revolt.
Quote:
Quote:
And said government monopoly doesn't apply for one because I don't support dictatorships
Do you want private health care to continue to exist after government health care comes? How about private transportation? If the answer to these is "no", then you support excessive government monopoly.
I support excessive government monopoly because Government = The public. We have a different understanding of what the government is. In my eyes, the government serves its people, and thus any companies owned by the government, merely exist to provide the people. Not to exploit them. Monopoly is only bad in private hands or in corrupt government hands.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 02:35 PM |
|
|
TA:
Correction: that's how businesses try to do it, but they're only successful in this if they have a monopoly. If there is competition, then the price will drop more and more until it is relatively near the cost of production.
Angelito:
Quote:
And for the example about the smoker:
I completely agree with that.
Problem is, you can expand this endlessly. For example: Why should I pay for an accident a paraglider suffered? Why should I pay for a man who got injured in a car accident because he was arguing with his wife and didn't pay attention too well?
You shouldn't have to pay for any of them.
Moonlith:
Quote:
If you are the weak, you would be all in favour of the idea that the strong carry the weak.
Not if I found it morally repugnant, or didn't want to be a leech and decided that self-respect is more important.
Quote:
You should understand that even the weak have good qualities that are usefull to societies. In your current stance, you are not acknowledging those
Eh, weak =/= poor. There are plenty of strong people who are nevertheless poor (although, unless they prefer to be poor for some reason, they don't tend to stay poor for long), and there are plenty of weak rich people (which is fine - they're only putting themselves at risk. If their savings/holdings get wiped out, there's not much they could do.) The point is, the strong would get very little for carrying the weak - they would get more from working for their own benefit.
Quote:
If you choose to compare the quality of USA to North Korea I am tempted to think you don't have very high standards.
If more government is a good thing, then North Korea should be a paradise, right?
Quote:
I am talking about the quality of the service he provides, not what the people think of how he runs his company.
How do you determine "good service" objectively, especially if public opinion is influenced by hiring and firing?
Quote:
Where you go wrong is in that you think the government is the public's enemy... You are (supposed to) liv(ing/e) in a democracy where the public IS IN CONTROL. Or technically SHOULD be.
The term "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind. Even if the public is fully in control, what if 51% of the people vote to kill the other 49%? The public is in control, so, is it all right? In this less extreme case, I'd rather the public not take what I earn from me. If I work for it, then I deserve to have it, not some bum.
Quote:
I support excessive government monopoly because Government = The public.
Wait, you support excessive government monopoly? Excessive means "too much". So you support too much government monopoly? If it's too much, then why do you support it?
Quote:
Monopoly is only bad in private hands or in corrupt government hands.
Large government monopolies inherently corrupt it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correction: that's how businesses try to do it, but they're only successful in this if they have a monopoly. If there is competition, then the price will drop more and more until it is relatively near the cost of production.
I disagree.
Just take a look at sports cars etc.
You could argue that if they are a different brand then that brand has monopoly over it's own brand then sure, but then everyone has monopoly and it kinda defeats the purpose of the word...
I would say that there is alot of competition for Jaguar, but their cars are still priced alot higher in order to make their product seem of high quality. Thus they can better compete with competitors such as Porsche etc. by raising their price to their level, because if everyone could afford a Jag rich people wouldn't want one anymore
There are many, many different types of pricing and basing it on production costs is just one of them.
But this is so irrelevant and offtopic it hurts a little.
Quote:
If more government is a good thing, then North Korea should be a paradise, right?
Hey... come on... you're better than that Mvass.
You can't extrapolate it out like that. It's not a "more the better" situation.
You could go the other way... if the less government the better, then anarchy should be a paradise, right?
There is a happy medium that doesn't leave people in abject poverty without the basic necessities of life comparable to 3rd world nations, and doesn't have the general population under lock and key.
Quote:
Yeah, those long waiting lists and relatively bad doctor pay is certainly great, right.
This is a fallacy.
Also USA can't talk about long waiting lists
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 04:25 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 16:25, 29 Sep 2008.
|
@Mvassilev
Quote:
Angelito:
Quote:
And for the example about the smoker:
I completely agree with that.
Problem is, you can expand this endlessly. For example: Why should I pay for an accident a paraglider suffered? Why should I pay for a man who got injured in a car accident because he was arguing with his wife and didn't pay attention too well?
You shouldn't have to pay for any of them.
Ok. Let's bring another example: Mvassilev has a wife and a kid, but lost his job due to wrong managament decisions in a bank (Lehman brothers ) he worked for, and therefore doesn't have money to pay a private health care.. It is a sunny afternoon and he decides to go for a walk with his family. All of a sudden his little children gets bitten by a rattle snake. He takes his children on his arms to bring it back home to your car and drive to the nearest hospital. Due to your panic and adrenaline you don't pay attention to the traffic when you cross the street. A car comes a long and hits you. You are laying on the street with both legs broken. The anti-serum for your children is pretty expensive, your surgery too. And the ambulance mission isn't for free either.
Who will pay all this? Coz I think the walk on that afternoon wasn't really needed, was it?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 05:00 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:06, 29 Sep 2008.
|
@Moonlith
Quote:
It comes down to a basic "The strong carry the weak" kind of society. You pay for the misfortune of someone else, so in the long run, others will pay for YOU when you happen to meet said misfortune, and most likely are unable to pay for it yourself. The fact some people require more care than others is just something you have to take for granted, although you can think of what to do about the people that cause their own problems. Here in the Netherlands we have a certain "Own risk", a maximum amount you have to pay for yourself in a year before your healthcare finances your medical needs.
You missed the entire point of what Wolfman was trying to get across. Getting cancer because of a vice is not a "misfortune". Or at least, it's not a random one. Nobody is going to have to pay for me when I get smoking-induced lung cancer because I choose not to smoke, and so I never WILL get smoking-induced lung cancer (unless of course it's from second hand smoke).
You are right that some people do require more health care than others. For those who do because of the poor choices they make in life I have no sympathy at all, and really it should not be my reponsibility to foot the bill. In the case of those who do because they are simply unlucky, well - I have sympathy for them but I really don't believe it is the government's right to obligate me to help them out. That goes beyond what I believe should be the government's power, on a philosophical level. On a more practical level, even if I would grant to you that the government should help out in cases of "random misfortune", you'd have to be able to come up with some nonarbitrary criterium to distinguish between these cases and those caused by people who willfully neglect their health, and insofar as that is a virtual impossibility, I can only logically conclude that the government should not get involved at all.
Quote:
But the question comes down to this: Would you rather live in a society where people help one another, or live in a society where people with misfunctions are being told to take care of themselves, which essentially comes down to secluding "less worthy" people.
I'd rather live in a society where people take responsibility for their actions and don't leech off the system because of their own poor choices. I have sympathy for the young man who by some stroke of bad luck gets pancreatic cancer and can't afford treatment. Yeah, that sucks. But I have no sympathy for the young man who smokes 3 packs a day and gets lung cancer and can't afford treatment. He chose to smoke. He has to accept the consequences, even if that means death.
The simple fact is that sometimes life deals you a bad hand. I'm all for helping out if I can, but it has to be done fairly. Government money should be spent ONLY on things that benefit EVERYBODY EQUALLY. A completely state-sponsored health care system does NOT benefit everybody equally. An unequal share of tax dollars will be funnelled towards people who make poor life choices. Indeed, you might even argue that such a "free ride" for unhealthy people may actually ENCOURAGE unhealthy behavior, because it removes some of the financial consequences to bad behavior. Certainly, I'm willing to compromise, because the current system DOES need fixed, but giving a carte blanche to people with self-induced health problems is not the answer - for me OR for them.
Quote:
But take note the more wealthy a society is, the more burden it can actually carry. You're living in--- You used to live in a rich country!
Just because someone CAN carry a heavy burden does not give a government the right to force him to.
Quote:
Besides, a doctor should be doing his job because he wants to help people. If he does it for the money, he's in the wrong business. (not to say they don't deserve a high pay, they are one of the few kinds of people that actually deserve a high pay in my mind.)
Really, what gives you the right to say why someone should be employed in a particular business? It's naive to think that most doctors chose their profession for altruistic reasons. I know of many doctors who became doctors at least in part because it's pretty lucrative. The reasons they became doctors do not necessarily have any relationship to their professional performance.
And, contrary to what you say, to my mind, their disproportionately high pay compared to other professionals who work just as hard is part of the problem. But that's getting off topic and I don't want to get in a rant.
Quote:
There are things that simply shouldn't be competed for, simply because it actually reduces the quality in order to produce bigger profits (like with your healthcare system).
I'm not sure how reducing the quality of, for instance - transportation - leads necessarily to larger profits. Amtrak, for instance, increases the quality of some of their express trains (more perks, bigger seats, less stops, etc.) in order to encourage people to travel by train instead of by plane - i.e., to make bigger profits. [Note: Amtrak is majority owned by the US Government, but it's still run like a corporation.] You honestly want the government running the airlines? Unlike private corporations, who are motivated to compete with other airlines, and thus improve their services, if all airlines were run by the government, you'd essentially have the same problem that you'd have with a monopoly.
Granted, the oil prices are killing the airlines right now, so the services suck anyway, but you'd have to work hard to convince me that the quality of service and pricing would be much better if airlines and public transportation in general was run completely by the government.
Quote:
Things in which Capitalism should be free, are things like luxery products. Things that don't directly and severely influence the quality of a person's life.
Ok, so give me a nonarbitrary set of criteria to distinguish between what's a luxury and what's not. Take bread as an example. Is bread a luxury? Let's say it's not. So the government should give everybody bread, because it's not a luxury. Everybody needs bread. Well, what kind of bread? White bread? That's definitely not a luxury. But whole wheat bread is nicer than white bread. Is that a luxury? Should the government give white bread to everyone or whole wheat bread? What about bread made with oats? With raisins? Whole pisachios? Truffles? Imported french bread? What's a luxury and what isn't? Which types of bread is everybody entitled to and which types of bread are luxuries?
You speak as if it's easy to classify any object as "necessity" and "luxury". But it isn't, is it? Even public transportation isn't. In Philadelphia, you have many choices (most of which are run by SEPTA, one of the most inept government-chartered organizations ever). There's public busses, which are generally crowded and uncomfortable, but fairly cheap. Then there's regional rail, which is more expensive and goes only to limited places, but is reasonably comfortable. Even better are taxi-cabs. Expensive, but private and will take you anywhere. And then there are limos - extremely expensive but with all the amentities you could want. Or you could walk, the cheapest public transportation of all. So, which ones are necessities and which are luxuries? Which should the government provide and which should it not?
Quote:
And note that just because things aren't being competed for, that doesn't mean worse quality.
Granted. But, by the same measure, just because something is run by the government does not mean it's better.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
Edited by Wolfman at 19:29, 29 Sep 2008.
|
Angelito:
Quote:
And for the example about the smoker:
I completely agree with that.
Problem is, you can expand this endlessly. For example: Why should I pay for an accident a paraglider suffered? Why should I pay for a man who got injured in a car accident because he was arguing with his wife and didn't pay attention too well?
This argument is exactly why I don’t want to pay for everyone’s healthcare. If you know the inherent risks of paragliding, than you accept that risk when you suit up. In a sense saying (to me anyway) that if this person gets hurt it’s their responsibility to take care of those injuries.
I agree that the simple idea of going to the doctor and not having to worry about paying for it, at least not right then or directly, is very attractive. However when I look at the whole issue of all those people who basically inflict injury on themselves, I can’t stand that. Either by smoking or overeating in the cases mentioned before, or the basejumper that miscalculated his jump off a building and plummets 100ft to the ground. He miraculously survives somehow but breaks every bone in his body. It’s an accident sure, but when he went out on that ledge he acknowledged those risks.
I simply will not pay for that. Too much of my money goes towards programs that I do not approve of, mostly because of abuse of those systems. I don’t think it is unfair for me to want to keep what I have worked for.
Moonlith:
Quote:
If you are the weak, you would be all in favour of the idea that the strong carry the weak.
Like Mvass said before me, I definitely wouldn’t. I had a conversation at work with one of our security guys about food stamps in this fashion. We thought it was strange how there didn’t seem to be a stigma surrounding the use of the food stamp cards anymore. We both agreed that if we were on food stamps we’d feel ashamed and would do everything we could to not be on them. However that doesn’t seem to be the case for most of the people that use them in our store. He and I actually wrote into the city paper and were published on this issue. 
I believe in personal responsibility. Everyone should take some accountability for his or her actions. If you are a fool and smoke for twenty years, pay for your own expensive cancer treatment. If you eat like a pig and could have chosen a different path and taken care of yourself, then you ought to take care of yourself when those choices come back to bite you.
The strong should not carry the weak, give him a leg up once maybe, but giving to charity should not be forced on the people.
Corribus:
First of all, I’m glad that someone understands where I’m coming from. I’m also glad I’m not the only one with my views like the old days.
Quote:
I know of many doctors who became doctors at least in part because it's pretty lucrative. The reasons they became doctors do not necessarily have any relationship to their professional performance.
And, contrary to what you say, to my mind, their disproportionately high pay compared to other professionals who work just as hard is part of the problem. But that's getting off topic and I don't want to get in a rant.
I would definitely contribute to that rant. If you were to start it in another thread or something.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 12:52 AM |
|
|
TA:
Quote:
I would say that there is alot of competition for Jaguar, but their cars are still priced alot higher in order to make their product seem of high quality. Thus they can better compete with competitors such as Porsche etc. by raising their price to their level, because if everyone could afford a Jag rich people wouldn't want one anymore
In this case, the high price supports itself - the consumers want high prices, that's the whole point of owning a Jaguar. So it's different from, say, health care.
Quote:
You could go the other way... if the less government the better, then anarchy should be a paradise, right?
No, but, generally, the less government there is, the better. The government should limit itself to education, defense and law enforcement, roads, and health care if it follows my health care proposal. If it doesn't, it's better if it doesn't get involved in health care at all.
Angelito:
Your example fails at the first sentence: "Mvassilev has a wife and kid"... As if that'd ever happen. And then it goes on the make it even less realistic: "he decides to go for a walk". These are perhaps the two least likely things to happen to me.
As for your example, it makes sense to a certain extent, which is why I advocate my plan, not complete government non-involvement, although I think that non-involvement is better than socialized medicine. On the other hand, smoking and paragliding are inherently dangerous activities. Taking a walk isn't.
Corribus:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 04:33 AM |
|
|
But as Mytical posted Americans pay so much for healthcare anyway.
It just seems to be the fact that it may go to smokers or whoever (ignoring the fact that it could go to sick children of single mothers or whoever) that bugs you rather than the actual cost.
As for Mvass, I personally believe that a first world, developed, industrialized government should be able to provide basic supplies such as water, electricity, education, security and healthcare to it's people in order to become accomplished as a nation.
With the corruption thing it's kind of an irrational argument when it comes to alot of things. If the government supplies water to every house at a reasonable price that prevents water wastage but remains affordable and has no profit incentive and is environmentally aware, then corrupt people aren't going to exploit this. It's like what can they do, raise the prices and make a profit? Everyone would know if the prices are raised.
Take some of the money for themselves? This is against the law as it is and could happen in any form of government.
A problem we are going to have soon here in Australia is that the government has commissioned a desalination plant to tackle the drought. However these plants are going to be owned by companies that are looking to make a profit, and have a contract which states that they supply X amount in order to make that profit, regardless of how much water we actually need. This means that we may be swimming in water in 30 years but still paying through the roof.
If the prices were regulated then when no more water is needed the government could simply stop running the plant, hence being more environmentally aware.
Quote:
In this case, the high price supports itself - the consumers want high prices, that's the whole point of owning a Jaguar. So it's different from, say, health care.
But we were talking about minimum wage laws, not healthcare.
Quite often factory workers will get paid minimum wage and factories can make anything from cheap goods to luxuries.
But as I said now major companies are just moving their factories to China where they can get labor for next to nothing and skyrocketing the China economy by exploiting their manpower.
Who to exploit - you or them?
I really don't know to be honest.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 05:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for Mvass, I personally believe that a first world, developed, industrialized government should be able to provide basic supplies such as water, electricity, education, security and healthcare to it's people in order to become accomplished as a nation.
That's your personal belief, but I disagree. If I can't earn it, then I don't deserve it.
Quote:
Take some of the money for themselves? This is against the law as it is and could happen in any form of government.
That'd be like selling guns in the middle of the ghetto and saying, "Murder? Murder is already against the law, so it isn't an argument against selling guns in the middle of the ghetto."
Quote:
But we were talking about minimum wage laws, not healthcare.
Quite often factory workers will get paid minimum wage and factories can make anything from cheap goods to luxuries.
But as I said now major companies are just moving their factories to China where they can get labor for next to nothing and skyrocketing the China economy by exploiting their manpower.
Who to exploit - you or them?
Yeah, so? The cost of the vast majority of goods goes down, making them more available. As for price-dependent luxuries, I'm not aware that they're making Jaguars in China. In the case of luxuries, though, that will increase the company's profits, which means that the CEO and/or stockholders will get more money, which is also a good thing. A janitor can't buy a Jaguar, but, thanks to offshoring, he might be able to buy a small bad car - but it's a car. Plus the increase in productivity will create new jobs. As for the Chinese workers - don't worry, companies are making them better off, otherwise they wouldn't work there. At least, in Vietnam, the average sweatshop pays twice the average national wage. Don't tell me that's not a good thing.
So there are three parties here - the workers, the consumers, and the company. All three of these groups benefit. I don't see what the problem is, then.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 05:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's your personal belief, but I disagree. If I can't earn it, then I don't deserve it.
I know it's a matter of opinion.
But if you extrapolate your world view out over time it just further widens the gap between rich and poor.
There are many people who are born into poverty and don't have the opportunity to earn a living. Of course there are some who don't deserve it but not everyone.
By this same token we should never give to charity because the people in Africa haven't been bothered to get jobs so they don't deserve it
Anyway, that's where we disagree.
Quote:
That'd be like selling guns in the middle of the ghetto and saying, "Murder? Murder is already against the law, so it isn't an argument against selling guns in the middle of the ghetto."
Not really.
I just think that so say if the government run the water supply there would be rampant corruption and all the water officials would be stinking rich exploiting us or whatever is the stuff of movies
Quote:
Yeah, so? The cost of the vast majority of goods goes down, making them more available. As for price-dependent luxuries, I'm not aware that they're making Jaguars in China. In the case of luxuries, though, that will increase the company's profits, which means that the CEO and/or stockholders will get more money, which is also a good thing. A janitor can't buy a Jaguar, but, thanks to offshoring, he might be able to buy a small bad car - but it's a car. Plus the increase in productivity will create new jobs. As for the Chinese workers - don't worry, companies are making them better off, otherwise they wouldn't work there. At least, in Vietnam, the average sweatshop pays twice the average national wage. Don't tell me that's not a good thing.
So there are three parties here - the workers, the consumers, and the company. All three of these groups benefit. I don't see what the problem is, then.
Jaguar was an example of a luxury good. Whether or not they make them in China is irrelevant because obviously many luxury goods are made in China, hence lowering production costs but the price remains the same, the only difference is the company makes more money.
The consumers don't care, the workers are exploited and the whole economy suffers as a result because of outsourcing. It increases jobs in China, boosting their economy but America loses employment.
Increase in productivity creates new jobs? How does having sneakers cheaply produced create more jobs in America?
You could argue that if there were no minimum wage laws in America then the factories and jobs would remain in America, same situation only more employment rather than it going overseas.
So you're saying that workers benefit more by getting paid less than the minimum wage? 
I also disagree that the vast majority of goods become cheaper.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 05:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But if you extrapolate your world view out over time it just further widens the gap between rich and poor.
As long as neither group is becoming poorer in the long run, then the gap itself doesn't concern me.
Quote:
By this same token we should never give to charity because the people in Africa haven't been bothered to get jobs so they don't deserve it
No, because they haven't had the economic development that they could've. But it would be better to make the aid conditional - we will give you money, but only if you do "x" which will make you better off.
Quote:
Whether or not they make them in China is irrelevant because obviously many luxury goods are made in China, hence lowering production costs but the price remains the same, the only difference is the company makes more money.
And what's so bad about that? It's not like the company stuffs that money under a mattress - it somehow spends it, which is good for the economy.
Quote:
the workers are exploited
The workers are made better off. When you've been working the fields for generations for subsistence, and you are offered a job that pays twice the national wage, I think that'd be quite a good thing. Unless you're suggesting that people in third-world countries are somehow stupid for wanting to improve their own lives. Certainly preventing them from having jobs isn't helping them.
Quote:
Increase in productivity creates new jobs? How does having sneakers cheaply produced create more jobs in America?
First, why America? As long as it creates a net increase in the quality of living worldwide, then it's good. What's with the economic nationalism? Second, it will benefit America, because when people are more productive they can - guess what - produce more with the same amount of labor. Therefore goods become cheaper and more affordable, more people can buy them, and their standard of living increases. And because goods are cheaper, they can spend their money somewhere else, generating more jobs.
Quote:
So you're saying that workers benefit more by getting paid less than the minimum wage?
They benefit more from getting paid less than minimum wage than from not being paid at all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 06:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As long as neither group is becoming poorer in the long run, then the gap itself doesn't concern me.
Of course the poor become poorer because they are no longer getting the benefits that you say they don't deserve.
Quote:
First, why America? As long as it creates a net increase in the quality of living worldwide, then it's good. What's with the economic nationalism? Second, it will benefit America, because when people are more productive they can - guess what - produce more with the same amount of labor. Therefore goods become cheaper and more affordable, more people can buy them, and their standard of living increases. And because goods are cheaper, they can spend their money somewhere else, generating more jobs.
Because we are discussing minimum wage laws in America.
I don't understand how people become more productive because of sweatshops.
As for the rest it's a complicated manner. In theory if you have a minimum wage the people already in the factories simply get paid more. In reality, they get outsourced to China where they can get cheaper labour, and whether or not China/India/Vietnam should have a minimum wage is kind of pointless to argue.
So we're more arguing over whether the sweatshops in China are a good thing, but that's kind of off the topic.
What's relevant is whether America should have a minimum wage so that people get paid enough to sustain themselves and a family or whatever, or not have a minimum wage law at all so that less jobs are outsourced overseas hence bringing employment back to America.
The answer to this particular question I don't know enough to be sure.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 07:19 AM |
|
|
See the problem is, only the already wealthy want to remove minimum wage. After all then they can get almost free workers to do whatever it is they don't want to. There was a system like this once..let me think..what was it called. Oh yeah..SLAVERY. Simply - "You work for us, or you starve." Yeah, that system works.
I can hear it now "Bleeding heart", etc. Think of me what you will. Lets give a decent example. There are some nations (who won't be named) that have no minimum wage. In order to just get the basics 'common' people have to work 18-20 hr days. Sure .. they can quit, but since every job is basically the same..to what end? Go from one 18hr - 20 hr a day job to another? Yeah that works. And since people don't like to, you know, starve there are plenty of people to take the place of anybody who quits. So only the wealthy and the mega wealthy actually make any money.
Unfortunately people seem to be dreaming of a utopia. In a perfect world..companies would pay employees good without regulation. This is not a perfect world, or even close. A owner of a company is going to pay as little as they can get away with. Corporations are even worse.
Think I am crazy? Even now corporations and businesses hire illegal immigrants for $2-$3 dollars an hour. It is ILLEGAL, and they still chance it, because hey..$2/hr is better then 7, and they make more profit. When they get caught it may cost them, but generally less then the profit they have made off this. Now remove the minimum wage thing, and they will want to pay everybody this..or less. Profit IS the bottom line.
Now lets go over to the health care issue. Ok, I agree that if it is your own risk, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Smoking, highdiving, etc .. hey I am all for the person having to pay for their own stupidity.
However, (you knew this was coming right?). Lets think about a few things. What about those things that people have no control over? The person driving while talking on the phone..sure he/she should have to fork over the cash..but what about that 17 car pileup he causes? That idiot driver gets dead..who pays for that?
Then there are people like Mr. Hawkings. He is 'weak'..heck he is almost totally paralyzed..but does that make him 'useless'? Or how about the elderly who already have contributed to society? When you get old should we just toss you out on the street, give whatever you had to your children (or whoever) and say. "Thanks for your contribution..good luck." ?
We are better then animals. Maybe it should not be mandatory for people to help each other, but it shouldn't HAVE to be. We should all be willing to help each other WITHOUT being asked to or made to.
____________
Message received.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 07:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We are better then animals.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that one.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 07:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We are better then animals.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that one.
Point..set...match. You have a very good point there.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 11:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We are better then animals.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that one.
Seconed.
Mytical: Excellent post
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 12:01 PM |
|
|
While you might very well be right Mytical it's not really pertinent to the Presidential debate because America can't change the laws in China and Vietnam etc. they can only change their own laws.
So the dilemma comes from, if they do try to do the righ thing and have minimum wage laws, the companies just outsource overseas, and simply employment drops.
That just leaves "if you can't beat em, join em"
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 12:39 PM |
|
|
That is just it. The president can't do spit about it. They can make promises, they can puff up their chests and prance around like ponies..but it all comes down to one thing. Listen carefully..."THE PRESIDENT HAS NO POWER OVER SUCH THINGS."
Sure..he can introduce a bill. Which will get so much pork and other things attached to it that if it is passed it will not even resemble the original bill. So if it gets passed and doesn't work..they can blame the 'pork'. If it doesn't they can blame congress/senate. Who most likely voted it down BECAUSE of the pork.
Lets say your right though. Lets say that we get rid of the minimum wage. Now..all these companies drop wages like rocks (believe me they would) and jobs come back over to America. Whee. Now the rich and Ultra rich have a grand ol time..for awhile. They are making money hand over fist, but the average person can barely feed their families. The cost of goods and services finally have to plummet, because only a few can afford it. Ok all well and good. Wait..there is a lot less money going around. People are not making any money..so they have less to spend..so the economy goes to pot.
I don't know the solution..maybe there is not one. Minimum wage doesn't work, but not having it doesn't either. Catch 22.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
