• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?

  • Yes, give your general geographic location

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • No, give your general geographic location

    Votes: 37 88.1%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
MoSurveyor said:
It precipitates a race to the bottom where (virtually) everyone looses. That's what I call "damage", yes.
Click to expand...

Even if that is true, and it's not, the fact would remain that to bring about that result no one would have to act towards the property or person of another.
 
The Mark said:
Why are we stupid, though? I use "we" here to refer to the american people...

I mean....what caused it? Or was it always the case? And if so....what does THAT mean?
Click to expand...
Lack of education, both formal and informal. Add that to a society that has made time an enemy and often prefers quantity over quality and, well, here we are!
 
Henrin said:
Even if that is true, and it's not, the fact would remain that to bring about that result no one would have to act towards the property or person of another.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this discussion isn't for someone who thinks it's OK to crap in their own front yard. I've already covered that aspect or didn't you bother to read those posts relating your mentality to the businessmen of the early 70's that whined about controls on pollution?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, this discussion isn't for someone who thinks it's OK to crap in their own front yard. I've already covered that aspect or didn't you bother to read those posts relating your mentality to the businessmen of the early 70's that whined about controls on pollution?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the thread is about minimum wage, not a long series of strawmen that you wish to build around it and pile up like a fort.
 
Henrin said:
Sorry, but the thread is about minimum wage, not a long series of strawmen that you wish to build around it and pile up like a fort.
Click to expand...
We all understand in your world there are sewers open to a sky gray with pollution. It's exactly that mentality that makes your minarchist fantasies nothing but pipe dream.
 
MoSurveyor said:
We all understand in your world there are sewers open to a sky gray with pollution. It's exactly that mentality that makes your minarchist fantasies nothing but pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Who is we? Look, you're perfectly safe in your fort of straw. I'm really not interested in attacking it or doing any harm towards it. Enjoy your fort and remember to maintain your soldiers of straw.
 
Wow, this forum is just full of fun stuff to read and ponder. Let's look at minimum wage from the big picture and see how it fits in.

We choose to exist in a capitalist system. This means you either already have sufficient capital to live on, or you must compete in the labor force to obtain other people's capital as compensation. Therefore, if you do not have sufficient capital you must make yourself relevant to those who do. This can't be any more simple. Your compensation should only be commensurate with your relevance to those with capital. No more, no less. This explains why Wall St. CEOs make thousands of times what burger flippers and gas pumpers do: they are very relevant to those with capital.

The minimum wage encourages inefficiency. By giving the less relevant a wage that enables them to survive it weakens the capitalist system by misdirecting capital to less efficient uses. However, capital will always seek its highest rate of return. So now we all know why gas pumpers have been replaced by automation and burger flippers will eventually be too. In the end, the minimum wage is only hurting those it means to protect. Better than giving them an unjust wage would be to educate them on how to become more relevant to capitalists.
 
Henrin said:
Who is we? Look, you're perfectly safe in your fort of straw. I'm really not interested in attacking it or doing any harm towards it. Enjoy your fort and remember to maintain your soldiers of straw.
Click to expand...
'We' is anyone who's paid attention to your minarchist rantings. The result of no environmental regulations were plain for anyone to see if they were alive in the late 60's. Have you changed your position and now agree that environmental regulations are needed?


I've not misrepresented anyone's position. Try again.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It precipitates a race to the bottom where (virtually) everyone looses. That's what I call "damage", yes.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't actually harm any person or any person's property.

Funny, I feel the same way about you and your green colored glasses where reality is ignored for the sake of unattainable idealism.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. What are these "green colored glasses" to which you keep referring?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot of money?
Click to expand...
Even one penny per hour is a "lot of money" , when nothing good is generated by the labor.
And one hundred dollars per hour is a "lot of money" when this exceeds the value generated by the labor.
BALANCE ...is this so difficult ?
At this point, I'd favor everyone...from the COP to the LC working...doing something is value ...and the pay based on the value actually generated.
LC = latrine chief (of which I was one , once) ..
"one penny per hour"
In a very improvised nation (Nepal, I think) a man had to take one stone against another to cause two smaller stones - to patch their pathetic "highways and roads"...the pay ? ...unknown.... The value generated may have been one penny per hour...
As a nation, our people should know of this (Ice road truckers)...and we should know where we are...
Why should we have a forty (40) work week ?
And, why are there a lot more in the way of internships and apprenticeships....with the very least of pay....even "negative pay" ??
Had I known, I would have been open to this alternative...rather than a string of lousy jobs...part time....
Job Service, among many other things , is in need of reform/improvement .
 
Federalist said:
But it doesn't actually harm any person or any person's property.
Click to expand...
You think economic policy can't injure people? I don't know whether to :lamo or :cry: at that.
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
I'm curious. What are these "green colored glasses" to which you keep referring?
Click to expand...
You've heard of wearing rose colored glasses? It's the same thing except specifically with respect to the capitalist system. People wearing green colored glasses can't see how destructive a raw capitalist system is to society.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You think economic policy can't injure people? I don't know whether to :lamo or :cry: at that.
Click to expand...

Nobody's person or property is damaged by being paid below a fixed price.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You've heard of wearing rose colored glasses? It's the same thing except specifically with respect to the capitalist system. People wearing green colored glasses can't see how destructive a raw capitalist system is to society.
Click to expand...

The protection of property rights and individual liberty damages nobody.
 
Federalist said:
Nobody's person or property is damaged by being paid below a fixed price.
Click to expand...
Virtually everyone is damaged by a lack of worker laws. Without them it's a race to the bottom.

Obviously, you think that's a race we should win.
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
The protection of property rights and individual liberty damages nobody.
Click to expand...
That's another nonsense, blanket statement. Of course some people are damaged when others are protected. That's the nature of all law. A very easy case in which to see this:
A person is starving, no one will give them food or offer them employment so they can buy food. The protection of another's property from them is fatal, the starving person will die. Can't have much more harm than death.




Does that mean our current laws allows a starving person to steal? No, because in this country we have government security nets that provide for people who are starving.
Of course, those green colored glasses of yours make taxes "stealing", so in your little, green Dreamland, yes, starving people are "allowed to steal" to survive - because they have no alternative.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
I have no sympathy for fry cooks with liberal arts degrees. They deserve the hellish, abject poverty they get.
Click to expand...
I have no sympathy for anything "liberal" whether it be in the noun or adjective form and hopefully someday soon will only be found in the archaic form_ :angel?:
 
Empirica said:
I have no sympathy for anything "liberal" whether it be in the noun or adjective form and hopefully someday soon will only be found in the archaic form_ :angel?:
Click to expand...
It's just a term.

Even if it falls out of use, there will always be persons who think in similar fashion. Probably.
 
"Give your geographical location"

You can't make me.
 
Empirica said:
I have no sympathy for anything "liberal" whether it be in the noun or adjective form and hopefully someday soon will only be found in the archaic form_ :angel?:
Click to expand...
And so it shall. Right alongside 'Conservative'.

Both of these self-indulgences are bound for extinction. Cons first, then Libs. The Centrists will be ineffectual but useful serfs, employed in low-level administrative capacities. You mark me.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
"Give your geographical location"

You can't make me.
Click to expand...
The electronic voting machines in my area do not ask for my location. They probably know already, of course.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's another nonsense, blanket statement. Of course some people are damaged when others are protected. That's the nature of all law. A very easy case in which to see this:
A person is starving, no one will give them food or offer them employment so they can buy food.
Click to expand...

Nobody has violated his body or property. There is no malfeasor in the scenario you describe.
 
Federalist said:
Not true. Nobody's body is damaged. Nobody's property is damaged. No damage occurs.
Click to expand...
Federalist said:
Nobody has violated his body or property. There is no malfeasor in the scenario you describe.
Click to expand...
I never said their was a violation of body or property - but Death is obviously "damage" and that's what occurred because someone else's property was protected.

Very few things are only good - most things are double-edged to some extent. Laws are no different, they give and they take at the same time.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I never said their was a violation of body or property - but Death is obviously "damage" and that's what occurred because someone else's property was protected.
Click to expand...

If you can't identify a malfeasor, then you can't claim that anyone harmed him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom