Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Wow, and I only wanted to be part of the 5 - 50 - 5 club. 5 weeks vacation $50K per year 5% ownership / bottom line profit sharing of your small business. Maybe I will have to rethink this now that we are paying everyone $100K per year - MINIMUM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted November 18, 2015 Moderators Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Both sides are immoral? It was a typo. I meant to say the buyer was moral and the vendor was immoral. My typing is deranged by the automatic keyboard on tablets@! Yours is way better than mine. I figured that was what you meant. I don't know if the buyer is moral or not, he certainly isn't immoral. I would say the vendor could be either immoral, if he had knowledge that he was selling poison. Whether he had knowledge or not, whether he was negligent or not. It is strict liability in that case, the vendor pays, at a minimum, regardless of whether there is any negligence or not. This is because the capitalist system is constrained (at least it used to be) by an evolving legal system which is based on moral judgements. It is actually a great example, it is pretty much what the tobacco litigation was all about, the Deep Horizon/BP litigation, punitive damages, etc. Does the law provide a remedy? is that enough of a deterrent to prevent immoral behavior? It won't eliminate it, nothing ever will, but does a realistic job of discouraging that conduct. Edited November 18, 2015 by dwilawyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) The effects of $15.00 minimum wage are all speculation at this point as we'd be in uncharted territory. The highest minimum wage has EVER been is $10.68 in 1968 (2015 dollars adjusted for inflation). We've never been close to $15.00 and have never doubled it all at once. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/ Edited November 18, 2015 by CECAA850 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 What's not to understand about that? Nothing...but you are extending. The system is simply a set of medical knowledge. It is amoral. It does not judge how the leg got broken or how deserving the person is of care. The system simply specifies how it should be treated. In APPLYING that system, the doctor may or may not make moral judgments according to some oath or the other. But the oath isn't the system. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Any "system" is incapable in determining between right & wrong, so by definition, ALL systems must be amoral in nature. Maybe that explains why we set up these systems in the first place - to act - without being encumbered with "moral" decision making. That's what I'm talking about... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Sorry... for got the thread topic was bloviating. Also pontificating, obfuscating, and masturbating while spinning off red herrings, non sequitors, strawmen, and more. Quite civilly, I might add. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Do we really need to double it? Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it? This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay. What about welfare? Wont workers be denied for some assistance if they immediately start making 29K a year? Wont the companies just start marking things up to cover the losses such as trucking companies have to do when the price of crude has them by the short hairs? It will all trickle down to the few middle class including the marginal local mom and pop shops that are left which catch the brunt in the long term anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Please, awaken me when this topic of discussion is over - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Do we really need to double it? Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it? This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay. Well, some attention really needs to be give to what level provides maximum direct aid to those in need and reduces reliance on the welfare system...which is incredibly inefficient. Seems there's general agreement that the welfare system isn't the best way to get help to those who need it and a higher minimum wage is direct aid with no middlemen. A well researched raise of the minimum wage MIGHT actually save the rest of the taxpayers money by reducing the need for tax money to be spent...for which we get nothing. My own belief is that we are paying for these people one way or the other: Either "hidden" in taxes or directly in wages. Personally, I'd prefer to see people working for their keep rather than getting it from the government. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Sorry... for got the thread topic was bloviating. Also pontificating, obfuscating, and masturbating while spinning off red herrings, non sequitors, strawmen, and more. Quite civilly, I might add. Dave You forgot this one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 We've had a minimum wage since 1938. It has risen numerous times. And clearly, most businesses figure how to adjust. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm Still can't figure out where it has more than doubled in the past. That's still not all of it though, you're talking about doubling it plus adding benefits. That's not really a small speed bump for many businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Both sides are immoral? It was a typo. I meant to say the buyer was moral and the vendor was immoral. My typing is deranged by the automatic keyboard on tablets@! Yours is way better than mine. I figured that was what you meant. I don't know if the buyer is moral or not, he certainly isn't immoral. I would say the vendor could be either immoral, if he had knowledge that he was selling poison. Whether he had knowledge or not, whether he was negligent or not. It is strict liability in that case, the vendor pays, at a minimum, regardless of whether there is any negligence or not. This is because the capitalist system is constrained (at least it used to be) by an evolving legal system which is based on moral judgements. It is actually a great example, it is pretty much what the tobacco litigation was all about, the Deep Horizon/BP litigation, punitive damages, etc. Does the law provide a remedy? is that enough of a deterrent to prevent immoral behavior? It won't eliminate it, nothing ever will, but does a realistic job of discouraging that conduct. My example was meant to show intentionally immoral behavior on the one side, and moral on the other. The vendor in my example knew it was poisonous and sold it anyway. The buyer accepted the offer and paid in full. That was his moral obligation. As to the law, I have not been making a case for the law. There are enough legal experts that I needn't make that case. My case revolves around moral behavior, not legal. Usually, the law exerts less influence on behavior than morality, which encompasses ideas like the greater good, or do no harm, and do what's the interest of clients. I propose, that we are only accept the amoral economics of capitalism because capitalists** have the most power to drive whatever system they prefer. People seem not to see that many businesses today are NOT capitalist businesses, but rather are operated as individual enterprises wherein the owner applies a moral code, or ethical code, of his own choosing. Whereas, there may be no companies in the S&P 500 who have any moral code written into their corporate charter. I've never seen it, but admittedly have not read ALL of them. I do know that stockholders regularly sue executives for NOT maximizing profit, and the law is on their side. **People who amass capital to finance the building of factories and machinery that employ wage earners. e.g. I exclude "hired hands" like CEO, who work for wages and bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 What's not to understand about that? Nothing...but you are extending. The system is simply a set of medical knowledge. It is amoral. It does not judge how the leg got broken or how deserving the person is of care. The system simply specifies how it should be treated. In APPLYING that system, the doctor may or may not make moral judgments according to some oath or the other. But the oath isn't the system. Dave You're quite confused over what the moral code defines. It has nothing to do at all with the doctor making judgments about his patients. It describes what behaviors of the doctor are right, and what behaviors are wrong as he performs his work. I suppose you are looking for a way out of understanding that doctors follow a moral code. So, frankly, at this point take whatever our you prefer. I have no interest to twist your arm. I just thank God my doctor understands his moral obligations to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 We've had a minimum wage since 1938. It has risen numerous times. And clearly, most businesses figure how to adjust. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm Still can't figure out where it has more than doubled in the past. That's still not all of it though, you're talking about doubling it plus adding benefits. That's not really a small speed bump for many businesses. Yeah, it's a speed bump. And as I said earlier, which I doubt that you read, it will be phased in over several years, and I'm good with that. I never said it had doubled in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Do we really need to double it? Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it? This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay. Well, some attention really needs to be give to what level provides maximum direct aid to those in need and reduces reliance on the welfare system...which is incredibly inefficient. Seems there's general agreement that the welfare system isn't the best way to get help to those who need it and a higher minimum wage is direct aid with no middlemen. A well researched raise of the minimum wage MIGHT actually save the rest of the taxpayers money by reducing the need for tax money to be spent...for which we get nothing. My own belief is that we are paying for these people one way or the other: Either "hidden" in taxes or directly in wages. Personally, I'd prefer to see people working for their keep rather than getting it from the government. Dave Dave, I do agree with what youre saying of how nice it would be.... Even IF the pay was better, a lot of people on welfare would be happy to stay on welfare. Also, the gooberment is't going to reduce taxes, they will spend our money on themselves or find some other way to squander it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Do we really need to double it? Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it? This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay. What about welfare? Wont workers be denied for some assistance if they immediately start making 29K a year? Wont the companies just start marking things up to cover the losses such as trucking companies have to do when the price of crude has them by the short hairs? It will all trickle down to the few middle class including the marginal local mom and pop shops that are left which catch the brunt in the long term anyway. If your argument is that workers don't deserve it, then what about when it goes the other direction: Do utility companies deserve minimum rates that guarantee profits? I just want to see if your holding each side to the same standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 it will be phased in over several years That changes everything. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? String it out long enough and it will have less buying power than $7.25 does today. I believe the whole premise of this debate was whether or not it should go from the current rate to $15.00 at once. It seems that everyone, I guess but you, took it that way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The survey that started this fiasco never mentioned a phase in either. It simply asked if it should be raised to $15.00/hr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) What's the over/under on whether the actual survey received more responses than this thread? Edited November 18, 2015 by Nismo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare? Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral. Dave Any "system" is incapable in determining between right & wrong, so by definition, ALL systems must be amoral in nature. Maybe that explains why we set up these systems in the first place - to act - without being encumbered with "moral" decision making. If I may point out the absurdity of your comment, you'd probably want to rethink it. You say, systems are incapable of determining right and wrong. That would mean the "judicial system" has no way to know right from wrong. Now that would be funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.