NoJingoLingo
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 325
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well they can join the USA who is already sold.Too bad Australia is being sold off to China......
Well they can join the USA who is already sold.Too bad Australia is being sold off to China......
Iron as well.....
Too protect American jobs. You're not too swift on this stuff are you?
1) Because it's a discussion forum.But we all know that this isn't going to happen so what is the point of arguing for it? Moreover, how does this mesh with your moral argument against the exploitation (what you call slavery) of foreign labor?
You said it in your own words:2) Huh? Protecting American jobs is exploitation, how?
You cry out against the exploitation of foreign labor to protect the exploitation of domestic labor.NoJingoLingo said:because taking advantage of a persons situation in order to profit is a form of slavery.
Pandas are important - can't have a zoo without em'ok, just most natural resources, but we get to lease pandas from them in return
Oh I see, you think domestic labor is being exploited. Got it. See it didn't make sense until you let us in on the conversation you were having in your head.You said it in your own words:
You cry out against the exploitation of foreign labor to protect the exploitation of domestic labor.
Oh I see, you think domestic labor is being exploited. Got it. See it didn't make sense until you let us in on the conversation you were having in your head.
I don't think domestic workers (other than illegal workers) are exploited... well, except currently... Sheesh... maybe you're right. Unemployment is high while worker productivity is at it's highest ever.
I can agree with what you are saying except I don't think I used "slavery" in reference to today's worker in the USA. Just to clarify that point.Even by your own definition, workers here are exploited(what you call slavery; but perhaps better: wage-slavery); our bosses all make profits off of us, and if they don't we get the boot. The difference between here and China or Mexico etc., is that the rate of exploitation is higher in those places, just as it is now higher here than just a few years ago.
I'm just pointing out that corporations have no morals and should be viewed that way instead of the deities we've turned them into. Surely you can see that?
OH THE HORROR!!!! What would our poor multi-billion dollar companies do if they can't rape a third world country? *gasp* QUICK GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT BEFORE THEY CHARGE MORE FOR MY LAMP!!!!!! :lamo
Well, as I'm sure you'd admit if you weren't simply trying to win an argument that you would have to impose Tariffs on imported goods rather than try to force a minimum wage on another sovereign nation.
On the other side of that coin, it's helped a lot of FAMILIES get by...
...trade offs are rarely great for all involved but again, I have to side with the people who really NEED a minimum wage.
How does it hurt minorities when they are the group most likely to need it?
Hmm... bring jobs back to the USA?
Firstly, if there's a job shortage in the market, attracting "more" laborers isn't an issue. As to "better quality", if it's a job with little entry requirements, like a factory job, there's usually no good way to gauge "better" workers.
Just because they're better than the status quo, that doesn't mean they couldn't be even better, by offering safer conditions, or more pay, or more practical schedules. Better than nothing doesn't equal good.
Factories that treat people as people and not a commodity would be a start.
So because you are able to take advantage of someone, you should. We already know this about corporatists, got anything new?
Umm, because taking advantage of a persons situation in order to profit is a form of slavery.
If the option is to die or work like a dog in unsafe conditions for what amounts to owing the company store... either you can't understand it or won't... I'm gonna go with intellectual dishonesty.
Because we have things called standards.
rape
1 /reɪp/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb,raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
Maybe you should learn the language before you make yourself look foolish.
You're just another con who thinks taking advantage of someone for personal gain is acceptable. Thanks Reagan!!
Too protect American jobs. You're not too swift on this stuff are you?
obviously they do.
Do you have some source for that?
I see no point in continuing this discussion with you because we have a fundamental disagreement.If they agree to it, why not. You still haven't stated why it's any of your business to stop the mutually agreed upon trade.
So you taking a raise is slavery? So you paying for something is slavery? You get taken advantage of every day. Your comparisons to actual slavery devalue what actual slavery is.
And if you take away the second option, what do they have left?!
You're begging the question. Why do we have this standard, because it's the standard. Again, you still haven't answered my question as to why it's any of your business if an employer agrees with me to pay me less than $7.25 an hour.
I stated it but you'd rather be obnoxious than have reasonable discourse.Do you have a relevant counter-point to my argument, or is inane blathering the only thing you're capable of?
What other families? Minority families? No, it helps them.While harming other families.
Empirical eh? That sounds very scientific... I guess I better believe you because you made it sound scientific.Once again, empirical literature shows that minimum wage laws hurt the people they are intended to help, namely minorities and teens.
Your specious premise doesn't take into account external forces and presumes labor is nothing more than any piece of machinery. In the real world, these are people.It's simple supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor, which results in a surplus of labor (unemployment). A person with no skills or education is therefore excluded from the labor market because the equilibrium price of their labor is below the price floor.
With unemployment at 9.7 percent, you'd be right.Oh yes, I'm sure there are millions of Americans clamoring for minimum wage jobs where they sew clothing...:roll:
I stated it but you'd rather be obnoxious than have reasonable discourse.
What other families? Minority families? No, it helps them.
Empirical eh? That sounds very scientific... I guess I better believe you because you made it sound scientific.
Don't you really mean, a think tank/economist created their opinion and put it on paper?
Your specious premise doesn't take into account external forces and presumes labor is nothing more than any piece of machinery. In the real world, these are people.
With unemployment at 9.7 percent, you'd be right.
No, it's not 24/7365. Yes it is hard work.Did we really work harder in the preindustrial era? Farming is hard work but you only do it part of the year.
Farming is 7/24/365.
And its very hard work.
Well, let's see, I informed you that the only reason companies hire people in underdeveloped nations is because they are a cheap source of labor. Then I informed you that artificially increasing their wages (which you never explained how to effectuate) would remove the incentive to hire such workers, which would force children into prostitution or starvation, which the studies show to be true. You proceeded to bloviate and rant about evil corporations, failing to address a single point I made.
No, I mean hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found that the minimum wage increases unemployment, mostly amongst minorities and teens.
50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage
You can blather all you want, but nothing will alter the basic dynamics of supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor which results in a surplus of labor.
Pf = Price Floor, Pe = Equilibrium Price, Qd = Quantity Demanded, Qe = Equilibrium Quantity, Qs = Quantity Supplied.
But maybe you're right - maybe every economist in history is just totally mistaken...:roll:
Highly doubtful. Most Americans do not want low-paying and tedious manufacturing jobs. Children in third-world countries need those jobs more than the average American, anyway, but you'd rather see them forced into prostitution or starvation.
I've always felt lucky like we are alive during the greatest time to be alive on Earth. That we are at the pinacle of the best of times. >>
Back in the early fifties, I heard people say the same thing about TVs. Probably said it back in the twenties about radios too.
ricksfolly
I've always felt lucky like we are alive during the greatest time to be alive on Earth. That we are at the pinacle of the best of times. >>
Back in the early fifties, I heard people say the same thing about TVs. Probably said it back in the twenties about radios too.
ricksfolly
They'll probably say it in the year 2059 about ______.
They won't be able to fathom how we ever lived without it, how we could've been happy without it, what we did for entertainment before it was invented.
Before there was television, people spent a lot of their leisure time watching the sky.
They lay around in the grass and watched for cloud pictures.
They stared up at the stars at night and tried to find the constellations.
They were more connected to the weather, and to the natural world.
When I was a kid- up until I was about eight or nine, maybe- I spent a lot of time watching the clouds. Watching the stars. Digging holes. Looking at bugs. Stuff like that. Swimming in the lake. I only came inside to sleep.
Although more sophisticated entertainments were available, I usually wasn't very interested in them.
I was never bored.
At some point, I got turned on to all these things- music, television, books, internet- and now, like everyone else, I can't fathom living without any of it.
But I think I was happier before. It was more peaceful.
I used to lose track of time- and of myself- when I was playing outside, in a way I never do when I'm watching tv or playing on the computer.
I don't necessarily feel sorry for people that lived a long time ago.
They had comforts and entertainment and occasional leisure time, just as we do. And maybe they enjoyed their lives more than we do. Maybe the pace was slower, and the years didn't fly by so fast.
Medical advances have helped us cure many diseases, but our average lifespan isn't much longer than that of people who lived before the advent of antibiotics, and immunizations, and chemo and radiation, and open heart surgery.
I can't point to any one thing and say, "Our quality of life is so much better now", because I'm not sure that's true.
Certainly socially it's better for some people: women, minorities, the handicapped.
I think it might be worse for the elderly.
In the old days, a lot of babies and children died of disease, and they don't now, so that's one thing we can definitely say has improved.
I don't know, it's a tough call.
Maybe some things are better and some things aren't.
I see no point in continuing this discussion with you because we have a fundamental disagreement.
You look at the value of the minimum wage and a worker from a purely profit based position.
I look at the value of the minimum wage and the worker from a societal based position.