Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[DrWho]

This should be the minimum wage, anything less would be useless unless someone was willing to live in a sub standard way or trade illegally to offset the difference.

 

 

You are assuming that someone in the workforce is trying to live on those wages.

 

I can think of several situations where someone is NOT living off their wages - and at the same time they enjoy an above standard way of life. A classic example (but certainly not the only example) is a high-school kid that lives with rich parents. There are several other scenarios too. Raising the minimum wage would get rid of a lot of those small types of jobs.

 

The other thing about minimum wage is that it doesn't guarantee hours. Again, going back to my poor friends....they actually make a decent wage, but they're always fighting for more hours and overtime pay. Their pay is already above $15/hour, but they still don't get enough hours to live on their own. By your standard, there really should be a minimum salary (or minimum wage + minimum hours). That would wreak havoc on manufacturing environments - not just dollars, but with the whole human element of the place because you'll be forced to pay people to do no work - which is really going to motivate them to be lazy...

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

d one of the problems I have with this mindset is that it implies a person's value is related heavily to their production capability.

 

Nothing draws this point more dramatically than comparing a 20 year old  ball player making  $5,000,000 a year and a 20 year old ACTIVE duty soldier making $19,000. 

 

 

I'm guessing you're probably a soldier, so you're probably uncomfortable with that reality. Those in a position where they feel they have more significance to the society tend to be upset when the dollars don't follow...

 

But the reality is that which the ball player provides is more valuable than the soldier....we're an entertainment / service focused culture. It's no different than the medieval times - we just don't have moats and castles anymore to make it more visually apparent.

 

The crazy thing is I think that pay difference is exactly where it needs to be based on the cultural values...

 

 

I think you're referring to "pop culture" and in that sense you are obviously and correctly right. But the larger culture, which includes our government, law, military, business communities prove something else entirely. The military budget is the largest segment of the national budget and the segment for sports is but a sliver, if anything at all. When the bombs start going off, no one turns around and says, "Where the he// are the ballplayers!"  

 

I think the original question was about value. And I suppose we could ask this to the population: Which would you rather have if you can only have one, ballplayers or soldiers? There's nothing at all really wrong with your comments, but I think you looked at a smaller part of the culture than what I intended. When people are going to sacrifice their actual life for altruistic reasons of defending others, the reward ought to be commensurate with the duty. And isn't it awful then that bankers who do not risk anything, and certainly not their lives, complain and whine about sacrificing a little bit of their massive incomes to a slightly higher tax? Well, making it even more ironic is that it isn't often the bankers themselves complaining, but rather the working man who has chosen to carry the water for the billionaire! 

[Jeff Matthews]

When people are going to sacrifice their actual life for altruistic reasons of defending others, the reward ought to be commensurate with the duty.

 

Supply and demand.  The supply of qualified people willing to defend the nation is much greater than the supply of people qualified to play in the NFL. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

When people are going to sacrifice their actual life for altruistic reasons of defending others, the reward ought to be commensurate with the duty.

 

Supply and demand.  The supply of qualified people willing to defend the nation is much greater than the supply of people qualified to play in the NFL. 

 

 

Should we therefore lower the soldier pay until only the exact amount needed are signing up?

[Mallette]

But the reality is that which the ball player provides is more valuable than the soldier....we're an entertainment / service focused culture.

 

One of those strange issues to me that I never bring up in polite company...but, considering where we are. 

 

I have no clue what people find interesting in these gladiatorial combats.  There is not a single professional "sport" I either know anything about or care about. 

 

Even as a kid I preferred to explore the woods, swim in the creek, camp out, and such while the others spent hours on a sand lot or field playing the "sport of the season."  I found it stultifyingly boring.  Same thing, hour after hour.  Usually the same results.  I DID enjoy student athletics in junior high, high school, and college but it was part of school spirit.  Now, even the college games are basically professional.   

 

Dave

[DrWho]

 

But the reality is that which the ball player provides is more valuable than the soldier....we're an entertainment / service focused culture.

 

One of those strange issues to me that I never bring up in polite company...but, considering where we are. 

 

I have no clue what people find interesting in these gladiatorial combats.  There is not a single professional "sport" I either know anything about or care about. 

 

Even as a kid I preferred to explore the woods, swim in the creek, camp out, and such while the others spent hours on a sand lot or field playing the "sport of the season."  I found it stultifyingly boring.  Same thing, hour after hour.  Usually the same results.  I DID enjoy student athletics in junior high, high school, and college but it was part of school spirit.  Now, even the college games are basically professional.   

 

Dave

 

 

Haha, nice.

 

Do you find no enjoyment, nor feel a sense of awe when you observe human talent that rises above the norm? I think the athletic sports type people might feel the same way about someone that listens to music....it's just the same thing, hour after hour, with usually the same results

 

I find myself on both sides of the coin, but I've been sharing your view and describing stadiums as "coliseums" for a long time now in reference to the gladiators. There's just this carnal enjoyment to seeing someone get lit up in an NFL game, and even more enjoyment when they pop right back up and still score a touchdown. We're just "more civilized" now since the gladiators don't actually die....although sometimes I wonder if that's not what we actually want to see.

 

I enjoy participating in sports because I enjoy the adrenaline rush. I enjoy watching sports because I enjoy watching strategies unfold. And I really enjoying exploring nature - and the ideal is combining the joy of all three. Downhill mountain biking anyone? Or maybe "driving" (racing) through the mountains?

[Mallette]

I just think of it as a business, Mike.  Nothing against it, I guess, just a complete failure of some system in me that others seem to have that causes excitement. 

 

It isn't a total loss.  I go to a SuperBowl party ever now and again and can enjoy it when it's a tight game.  Maybe a bit of contagion...  However, listening to people go into minutiae about various players and such I doze off immediately.

 

Dave

[T2K]

Anybody heard from MD associated w/Klipsch?

 

Keith

[CECAA850]

Anybody heard from MD associated w/Klipsch?

 

Employee?

[oldtimer]

Anybody heard from MD associated w/Klipsch?

 

Keith

I love you man.

[oldtimer]

I have no clue what people find interesting in these gladiatorial combats.

 

Yet you claim to know at least a little bit about history?  C'mon man!

[Mallette]

Yet you claim to know at least a little bit about history? C'mon man!

 

Good point.

 

Dave

[sheltie dave]

Here is an interesting situation, since I knew the plant in St. Louis well.

 

 

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Here is an interesting situation, since I knew the plant in St. Louis well.

That passes the Snopes test 

[JohnA]

 

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil.  In places, sure. 

Self contradiction.

 

Not if you knew what you were talking about. 

 

 

 

One cannot serve Mammon AND God.  That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists.  I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

 

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit. 

 

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost. 

 

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else. 

 

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat. 

 

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion. 

 

 

Capitalism is operated by capitalists and they cannot be separated.  There is no "system".  What we call a system is just free individuals choosing to exchange goods, labor and services voluntarily, or not, in random chaos.  You can be sure most people are working against your best interest, but in theirs.  Me included.  It is how life should be.  I will not accept any other "system" because it would remove my ability to choose my own fate and live with the consequences.  It would prevent me from exercising my own morals.  THAT is why I would want that and actually INSIST on it.  My choices allow me to avoid people working against my own interests and morals.  I require that choice.  Anything else is inequitable. 

 

The U.S. has fought 3 wars over our freedom, but I would fight another to prevent you (or another) from forcing your moral code on me or any other, for that is the greatest immorality of all. 

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

Capitalism is operated by capitalists and they cannot be separated.  There is no "system".  What we call a system is just free individuals choosing to exchange goods, labor and services voluntarily, or not, in random chaos.  You can be sure most people are working against your best interest, but in theirs.  Me included.  It is how life should be.  I will not accept any other "system" because it would remove my ability to choose my own fate and live with the consequences.  It would prevent me from exercising my own morals.  THAT is why I would want that and actually INSIST on it.  My choices allow me to avoid people working against my own interests and morals.  I require that choice.  Anything else is inequitable. 

 

The U.S. has fought 3 wars over our freedom, but I would fight another to prevent you (or another) from forcing your moral code on me or any other, for that is the greatest immorality of all. 

 

Well said 

[Jim Naseum]

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil. In places, sure.

Self contradiction.

Not if you knew what you were talking about.

One cannot serve Mammon AND God. That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists. I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit.

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost.

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else.

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat.

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion.

Capitalism is operated by capitalists and they cannot be separated. There is no "system". What we call a system is just free individuals choosing to exchange goods, labor and services voluntarily, or not, in random chaos. You can be sure most people are working against your best interest, but in theirs. Me included. It is how life should be. I will not accept any other "system" because it would remove my ability to choose my own fate and live with the consequences. It would prevent me from exercising my own morals. THAT is why I would want that and actually INSIST on it. My choices allow me to avoid people working against my own interests and morals. I require that choice. Anything else is inequitable.

The U.S. has fought 3 wars over our freedom, but I would fight another to prevent you (or another) from forcing your moral code on me or any other, for that is the greatest immorality of all.

No system? Let's understand the word system, first.

Webster Defines: system

Full Definition

1 :a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: as

a (1) :a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitational system> (2) :an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium <a thermodynamic system>

b (1) :a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions <the digestive system> (2) :the body considered as a functional unit

c :a group of related natural objects or forces <a river system>

d :a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone system> <a heating system> <a highway system> <a computer system>

e :a major division of rocks usually larger than a series and including all formed during a period or era

f :a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice <the capitalist system>

2 :an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>

END

Capitalism is therefore a system, and our economics in total is a system, and there is no way to wiggle out of that without denying the existence of the Law, the Courts, Congress, Regulatory bodies, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and a hundred government institutions, the stock markets, thousands of corporate charters, banks, and the money itself. Chaos? Hardly.

Your vision of free individuals operating in chaos can only be considered a fantasy. It doesn't exist in the USA. It might exist right now in Syria or Iraq, however where society has disintegrated into nothing but gangs. Even then, in the worst of countries, the gangs bring some order to chaos.

I am not forcing my moral code on anyone. I said capitalism was amoral, and that the economy should operate on some moral code just like the rest of society does. I suggested "The Golden Rule" as a start. For your very uninformed education, I did not make up the Golden Rule, the Christian god did. Since 3/4 of America is Christian, it seemed a good start to me.

I'm stunned that you can't understand those few simple ideas. And I'm stunned at the utter lack of knowledge one must have to describe this as free people operating in chaos.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 18, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jeff Matthews]

I'm stunned that you can't understand those few simple ideas.

 

Tisk, tisk.  Let's try harder to be understanding rather than to be stunned. 

[Jim Naseum]

Quote

Capitalism is not a system. What we call a system is just free individuals choosing to exchange goods, labor and services voluntarily, or not, in random chaos.

End

For those who do vigorously support this Albright:'s view, like jweber and jmatthews, how did you derive this view? Is this a doctrine of some group, think tank, author, or public figure?

I'd like to learn the source of this concept, and discover how or where it is being taught. The usual reactionary viewpoint is that we have too much regulation and not enough freedom of choice. They want the government "off their back." Reactionaries are also well known for advocating Biblical morality, or Christian morality, and often INSIST that the intention of the USA was to be a Nation Under God. That is a vote of confidence for the same morality that promotes the Golden Rule.

So, this view of free random chaos is an atheist view? I'm finding it impossible to see how this view is constructed.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

Quote

Capitalism is not a system. What we call a system is just free individuals choosing to exchange goods, labor and services voluntarily, or not, in random chaos.

End

For those who do vigorously support this Albright:'s view, like jweber and jmatthews, how did you derive this view? Is this a doctrine of some group, think tank, author, or public figure?

I'd like to learn the source of this concept, and discover how or where it is being taught. The usual reactionary viewpoint is that we have too much regulation and not enough freedom of choice. They want the government "off their back." Reactionaries are also well known for advocating Biblical morality, or Christian morality, and often INSIST that the intention of the USA was to be a Nation Under God. That is a vote of confidence for the same morality that promotes the Golden Rule.

So, this view of free random chaos is an atheist view? I'm finding it impossible to see how this view is constructed.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

That's a lot like saying, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

 

I think the thrust of the point is that our "system" is far less managed than some others out there.  In China, for example, they have managed the construction of entire ghost cities (not towns), full of shopping malls, hi-rise apartments and office buildings... completely uninhabited and utterly useless to the working citizens.

 

Contrast the "system" where government ignores supply and demand.  That's what I think was the thrust of his point.