|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted September 26, 2010 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And, of course, neither party wants to legalise marijuana, same-sex marriage, polygamy, and prostitution, or abolish the minimum wage and all international trade barriers.
Polygamy? It already is a dreadful experience getting one man and one woman divorced. Getting multiple people divorced from each other would be a nightmare.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 11:31 PM |
|
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 11:45 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 12:26 AM |
|
|
|
Those are some of the worst, most incomprehensible figures I've ever seen in my life.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 12:44 AM |
|
|
Economic theory and MS Paint definitely don't go well together.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 12:53 AM |
|
|
Yeah, those graphs are terrible. Here's something that might be easier to understand.
Ohforf:
Wage is the price of labour.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 02:01 AM |
|
|
I have some issues about those charts but I'll get to them another time. No matter how much one may worship it, economy is still not a religion and doesn't really belong in this thread, right?
I'll just point out the most important bit for me, if I may.
You've mentioned that wage is a price of labour; yet labour is quite a unique sort of good and I believe the logic of those charts cannot fully extend to it.
Let me explain.
In order to survive in a capitalist society, an ordinary man needs to have a job. His work can be regarded as a good he MUST sell, or else he'll starve. He doesn't have a choice, he needs to "export" as much as "the consumers" (his employers) want, or else he is destroyed - and the employers don't give a rat's ass about that because it won't be directly their fault. You will starve, and no one is going to take the blame for it. You have to dance to their whims.
So, in theory, employers could offer as small amounts of money for it as they like, knowing that if no one wanted to buy his work for a larger price, he had to agree to anything.
That's indirect blackmail, and the minimum wage laws are theoretically there to, at least partially, protect the producer of work, aka the ordinary man, from it.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 02:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
More money for you, though. 
But I don't get paid big lawyer bucks. 
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:20, 27 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
The looniest tune I see here starts with an E and ends on a din.
Ah, you seem to be unable to engage in a discussion without throwing personal insults at those with differing opinions. That is really sad, "Jolly."
Quote:
Vaccinations are by no means a personal decision because they are protecting the whole body of society against plagues, and the concept has proven to be successful. For that reason, in the US they are mandatory and rightly so.
Nah, no one has the right to force a medical procedure on anyone. What do you think the government should do to anyone who refuses a vaccination, kill them?
Nah, you should learn US law. Vaccinations are not mandatory for US citizens. They are mandatory for certain public schools but there are exemptions for allergies, religious reasons, and other reasons.
Quote:
For the rest, you don't make any sense at all. Defend the right of religiously blinded idiots to kill their children - it's still murder.
Of course anyone who says I have ever said it is ok for anyone to kill their kids is a liar.
In fact, I argue against allowing women to murder their children, while, as I recall, your position is that women should in fact be allowed to murder their unborn children.
Of course when you speak of "religiously blinded idiots" I can only assume you are refering to materialistic atheists,
Quote:
A child that needs a blood transfusion, is in no condition to argue.
It always amazes me that a person who argues that a teenage girl should be able to obtain an abortion without parental consent is not qualified to refuse medical treatment.
Quote:
Someone else has to make the decision.
That would be the parents, JJ. The ones who wiped the butts of their children and who taught them right from wrong and who love them more than anything in the world. Not some loony Marxist politician who lied to get into office and who does not give **** about the child.
Quote:
And here the parents have no right whatsoever to let their child die because of THEIR personal religious delusions.
It is the CHILD who has the right to be protected from such delusional decisions, getting it killed.
Letting a child die for fear it could forego salvation is murder for superestitious beliefs. You could just as wwll kill a child and then claim it was the anti-christ or something.
Sorry, I disagree that delusional atheists should control all sane people, JJ. Atheists make up a tiny percentage of all the people who ever lived and is in worldwide decline. Delusional atheist tyrants certainly murdered more people in the last 100 years than all other religions for all of recorded history.
Atheists have a right to make decisions for themselves and for thier children, even though the atheist worldview is nothing but a delusion. Others with a more rational woldview also have that same right.
Quote:
People like Elodin (and there are probably those who really think that way and aren't trolling the crap out of us) have this view of freedom which rests heavily on the belief that children are private property, to be treated in accordance with their parents' wishes, no matter how deranged they are.
Anyone who says I think children are private property is a liar.
I don't think the State-god owns the children or that parents own the children. Parents do have parental authority. The authority of parents over their children came before the existence of the stgate.
Quote:
Also, saying that the right of the stronger is the logical conclusion to "materialistic atheism" is like saying that the King's divine right is the logical conclusion to Christianity.
Nah, Christianity does not teach kings have the divine right to rule. The Bible does say that whoever rules over man must be just and live in the reverence of God.
Quote:
In order to survive in a capitalist society, an ordinary man needs to have a job. His work can be regarded as a good he MUST sell, or else he'll starve. He doesn't have a choice, he needs to "export" as much as "the consumers" (his employers) want, or else he is destroyed - and the employers don't give a rat's ass about that because it won't be directly their fault. You will starve, and no one is going to take the blame for it. You have to dance to their whims.
Yes, in a capatilstic system you are expected to work if you are able to work and you want an income. But you do have the option of being a beggar if you don't want to work. And yes, if you chose not to work and you starve it is in fact your fault. You don't have a right to leech off of others.
Oh, most small business owners do in fact care about their employees.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 02:25 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:31, 27 Sep 2010.
|
Elodin.
Before any further discussion.
Were Australian authorities right to imprison Josef Fritzl?
Yes or no.
Simple question.
About my post directed at MVass, you missed the point entirely as usual. Every system requires you to work, something completely else is in question here. I suggest we leave it at that and let him answer.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 04:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So, in theory, employers could offer as small amounts of money for it as they like, knowing that if no one wanted to buy his work for a larger price, he had to agree to anything.
Wrong. Wages are determined by supply and demand, not just one of them. Sure, employers want to pay workers as little as possible, but they can't - and not because of minimum wage laws, but because of other employers. If a guy makes $10 an hour at one company, and a competitor thinks that kind of work is worth at least $11 an hour, they'll hire him and he'll make more. This process repeats until equilibrium is reached, and workers are paid their marginal product of labour.
Suppose there was no minimum wage, and you owned a McDonalds. You think, "Muahaha! I'm an evil capitalist! I'm going to pay my workers pennies!" What happens if you actually try that? They all quit and go to work at Burger King next door.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 06:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wages are determined by supply and demand
Wages are determined by PERCEIVED supply and PERCEIVED demand
Fixed
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 07:47 AM |
|
|
Elodin, why are you avoiding the point?
A child is delivered by ambulance into the emergency room of a hospital. Accident. Massive blood loss. Docs working feverishly to stanch a wound. Child near death due to blood loss. Blood type is determined. When looking for something to identify the child, they find a card with his name and adress and parents and the note, "In case of an accident, don't do a blood transfusion."
Docs are trying to reach the parents via phone, get one, tell him or her, what happened. Parent explains, nope, no transfusion, child would lose salvation.
Question: As a doc, do you let the child die?
If you answer yes, you are guilty of denial of assistance which is a crime.
However, there's more:
Question: Are the parents acting in the best interest of the child?
Answer: They may subjectively believe it, but objectively the child will die - so where to draw the line?
If a child has an accident that will leave it badly handicapped and the parents believe that the boy will be better off dead, being with god and all instead of suffer through a pain-filled life in a wheelchair, is it ok for them to pull some plugs in the intensive care because THEY believe that may be best for the child?
And if parents CAN decide that it is in the child's best interest to die because that's preferable to a blood transfusion - why couldn't they decide the same thing when they believed that their boy was on the direct road to hell later on? Better kill him now instead waiting until he forfeits his salvatation?
The bottom line is, that there is a line that parents must not (be allowed to) cross.
The main task of parents is to ensure a child's well-being and make it capable to make its own decisions when it becomes a grown-up. Therefore the parents MUST NOT decide for a child that it's better to die on behalf of THEIR belief, no matter what their belief SEEMINGLY would force them to do.
And what belief is it, that forces their members to decide between the earthly life of their children and their eternal well-being? What god would force such a decision onto parents?
Which means, there is an OBJECTIVELY right decision, and that is the decision to do everything that ensures, a child grows up TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS.
Abortion has nothing to do with it, by the way. And even if you would insist that it had - why would you call an abortioner a murderer, but a parent now allowing their child a blood transfusion not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism has nothing to do with the toppic. Still, as soon as there ARE regulations for governmental help for unemployed or people otherwise not being able to earn money, a minimum wage de facto already exists.
It makes no sense when a worker gets less money for working than for not working, so a minimum wage makes sense as soon as there are social payments.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 09:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Suppose there was no minimum wage, and you owned a McDonalds. You think, "Muahaha! I'm an evil capitalist! I'm going to pay my workers pennies!" What happens if you actually try that? They all quit and go to work at Burger King next door.
Yes but what if Burger King offers equally little? If McDonald's and Burger King have a mutually beneficial deal, that none of them offers more than X as payment for the workers?
You can't ignore the cartel factor.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 10:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Suppose there was no minimum wage, and you owned a McDonalds. You think, "Muahaha! I'm an evil capitalist! I'm going to pay my workers pennies!" What happens if you actually try that? They all quit and go to work at Burger King next door.
Yes but what if Burger King offers equally little? If McDonald's and Burger King have a mutually beneficial deal, that none of them offers more than X as payment for the workers?
You can't ignore the cartel factor.
QFT, QFE. This is why sweatshop workers in some countries have such miserable lives. It is a choice between the evils of working for a company (any, it doesn't matter) that will work them near to death for pennies..or starving. Some choice. People can say "Pay pennies and they work elsewhere" all they like, but when EVERYBODY pays pennies..guess what? Doesn't matter where you work.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 11:55 AM |
|
|
It depends on whether it's an employers market or an employees market. An employers market is a lot more common. Labor rates rarely reach equilibrium for any length of time, if at all. They don't stabilize like product prices.
The best strategy is to job-hop during employees markets, with an increase in pay each time. You can always get much larger jumps in pay by changing companies. So when the market is good and a lot of jobs are available take advantage of it and job-hop for higher pay. Then when it starts to slow, stick with one company. Or at least don't change jobs unless the opportunity is very good.
The big trick when you're young is to work for experience as much or more so than for pay. Not just any experience, but GOOD experience. That's what the game is all about, getting good marketable experience. Learn about the market and what's in highest demand. Then go for the experience. With a good strategy, good marketing skills (make them believe you are God ), and a little luck, you will be highly marketable after 5-10 years. If you do it right you should have some skills that are in demand but not many people with similar skills.
So when you are considering a job, don't just look at pay, look at what you'll learn. Pay is entirely about experience and your ability to sell yourself.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 12:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, Christianity does not teach kings have the divine right to rule.
Exactly! Now replace "christianity" with "materialistic atheism" and "divine right" with whatever it is that you implied earlier and you'll get the complete message!
"Nah, materialistic atheism does not teach kings have the right of the stronger to rule."
Though due to the very ambiguous nature of the materialistic atheist sources of doctrine, anyone can just come up with anything.
So according to what I was able to gather from that economics book, imposing a price floor ramps up the price of the goods in a way that makes the goods cost more than demand allows. I guess that might cause some shaking motion between the supply and demand untill an equilibrium is reached at the price floor or alternatively the floor is dodged by going to China. That basically means that everybody loses and/or the Chinese take over.
In this case, the employer won't be able to buy as much workforce as without the floor and there will be more workers who can't sell their work. I guess the "not able to buy as much workforce" will then resonate elsewhere too.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 01:01 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:01, 27 Sep 2010.
|
@Bin
That's swell.
Until you try to pay the rent with XP points.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 01:50 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:53, 27 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
Parent explains, nope, no transfusion, child would lose salvation.
Question: As a doc, do you let the child die?
If you answer yes, you are guilty of denial of assistance which is a crime.
Yep, a doctor diagnoses conditions and advises on how to treat conditions. It is not a doctor's role to force an unwanted treatment on anyone.
No, JJ, refusing medical treatment is not a crime. My uncle refused teatment for cancer and was told he would be dead in a year. Yet he lived more than 20 years after that.
Many people have signed "do not recisitate" medical forms. It is idiotic to say that those people are saying "murder me." They are simply refusing medical treatment and letting nature take its course.
Why can't you accept that atheists don't have the right to rule the world? If you want to live your life pretending that the universe just popped into being from absolue nothing with no reason and there there is nothing beyond the material, then by all means do so. But don't expect everyone else to buy into that delusion.
I personally have no problem with blood transfusions, as I said before. But unlike you, I don't believe the State-god should get to dictate the medical care of everyone in the nation. I respect the right of people to believe differently than I do and to live according to their beliefs. I am sad that you don't seem to have the same respect for the rights of others.
Quote:
And if parents CAN decide that it is in the child's best interest to die because that's preferable to a blood transfusion - why couldn't they decide the same thing when they believed that their boy was on the direct road to hell later on? Better kill him now instead waiting until he forfeits his salvatation?
Murder is wrong, JJ. Refusing a child medical treatment because you are prejudiced against handicapped children and would rather the child die than be handicapped is wrong. Murding an unborn child because you don't want "it" or because you are poor or because you are mad at his father or because the doctors said he may not be born perfect is wrong.
No, JJ, you should not be able to kill your child simply because he is not living the way you want him to live. No Christian would ever advocate such a thing, although I can see how materialistic atheism could lead to such a policy.
Quote:
The bottom line is, that there is a line that parents must not (be allowed to) cross.
The main task of parents is to ensure a child's well-being and make it capable to make its own decisions when it becomes a grown-up. Therefore the parents MUST NOT decide for a child that it's better to die on behalf of THEIR belief, no matter what their belief SEEMINGLY would force them to do.
Sorry, you seem to not understand the role or a parent or the role of the government.
And it is revealing that you use the term "it" for a child.
Yes, parents are to provide for the child physically, but also spiritually. Materialistic atheists are unable to meet the second half of that statement.
Yes, parents are to train their chldren, in both "secular" and "spiritual" matters. In reality, there is not such thing as a separation of life into secular and spiritual. ALL of life is spiritual.
The Marixst State-god thinks it has the right to force atheism on everyone but clear thinking individuals recognize the right of everone to chose religions other than atheism. Most people believe a person should be allowed to chose whatever religion thaey want and to live according to their beliefs.
In a free society everyone MUST be allowed to live according to their own religious beliefs and the State must not be allowed to dictate religous beliefs, medical procedures, how much chocolate a citizen can eat, that a citizen must buy health insurance, that a citizen must buy a car from a government controlled facility, that a citizen must go jogging evry day, that a citizen must eat his vegetables, ect.
In a free society not everyone is going to agree with you, JJ. Just live your life according to your religious beliefs and let others live according to theirs, ok? You would probably be a much more jolly person if you could learn to accept that others have the right to chose their religino and that the State should not be in the business of dictating beliefs (religious or otherwise) of the citizens.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 02:14 PM |
|
|
You didn't answer my question, Elodin.
That's impolite, if nothing.
Josef Fritzl, arrest, yes or no.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
