$17 minimum wage in Seattle

[Fairweather]

I agree that those who exploit others tend to be some of the most intelligent and resourceful members of our society. But talent and inspiration should not be misconstrued as the right to exploit others to the point of poverty.

 

 

Is Bill Gates 'exploiting others'?

[ashw_justin]

me and charlie are squatting in the bush getting stronger every day

[Billygoat]

Right on man!

 

What the fuck problem have we ever solved on this spray ridden website?!?!?

 

I have a Puma Bowie from Germany. Such a more classic way to spread those Kool-Aid smiles than a Kershaw

 

See you there...

[Fairweather]

What do you mean by "stable" economy?

 

not growing. Money neither created nor destroyed, economic homeostasis. Sorry, I'm too out of my element to know how to say this is economic terms.

 

Growth = construction starts = jobs. An economy that isn't 'growing' is in recession. Are you willing to give up your job? Do you think that you're immune? Also, there is no 'pie' to be divided up.

[ashw_justin]

Is Bill Gates 'exploiting others'?

 

Somewhere in a dark basement there are 993 wretched programmers, slaving over non-ergonomic keyboards and archaic rolly-ball mice, wondering just how many extra hours they will be forced to work in order to make the next payment on their sailboats.

 

The other 7, unable to withstand the pressure the 21st century working conditions, were forced by the cruel system to abandon work and sit at home playing X-Box day in and day out, barely surviving on the rotten scraps of Microsoft stock options.

 

I don't know enough about Gates, but I'm sure he's got his avaricious little golden hands dipped into plenty of shady unsavory business practices, at the expense of the common worker! But hey, it's not his fault. He's playing by the rules. Capitalist rules.

 

It's like they say: don't hate the player, hate the game.

[ashw_justin]

An economy that isn't 'growing' is in recession.

 

That's exactly the problem. A big fucking problem because growth is not infinite. There are boundaries and we are hurtling toward them.

[Fairweather]

I love the game and admire good players. ...And I don't even play it all that well! I will gladly eat their tasty crumbs.

[Billygoat]

Hey FW,

 

How hot is that nurse friend of your wife's?!

 

[Fairweather]

An economy that isn't 'growing' is in recession.

 

That's exactly the problem. A big fucking problem because growth is not infinite. There are boundaries and we are hurtling toward them.

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~promer/Econgro.htm

[Fairweather]

She's not as hot as the first time I saw her (I must have been a little drunk) but still cute. This girl had more shit packed into a U-Haul than any family of ten could ever imagine owning. I was especially intrigued though, by the box labeled "misc bedroom things". She quickly wrested the cardboard cube from my grasp while I was carrying it into her new house with a big smile on my face.

[Billygoat]

 

I love it

[Valis]

The only way for that to happen in a stable (non-growing) economy is for that money to be TAKEN from someone else.

 

So, that's what's called a zero sum game. Comedian George Carlin said "Life is a zero sum game." Why is it that comedians can have such cutting insight into life? Sure it's pessimistic, but it seems so true.

[ashw_justin]

http://www.stanford.edu/~promer/Econgro.htm

 

That was cute, cows and chemistry, the refinement of technology... Leave it to the wizards of an ivory tower to be completely oblivious to the tangible--soon we will reach the limits of infrastructure and natural resources, and all the technology and philosophy in the world will not be able to prevent stagnation. That is unless we find a way to self-regulate our sprawl, first.

 

When a bacterial broth exceeds the capacity of its resources, the log phase ceases, and a mortal pestilence wipes out the population. Here's everyone's chance to prove that humans are indeed a higher form of life. The end is near! Fear the reckoning!

[EWolfe]

An economy that isn't 'growing' is in recession.

 

That's exactly the problem. A big fucking problem because growth is not infinite. There are boundaries and we are hurtling toward them.

 

Bring it. Otherwise, if prolonged, we are doomed.

[JayB]

What do you mean by "stable" economy?

 

not growing. Money neither created nor destroyed, economic homeostasis. Sorry, I'm too out of my element to know how to say this is economic terms.

 

I think I understand what you are saying now, but I'm not sure where one could actually find evidence that the economy is no longer growing.

 

One thing to consider is that unless economic growth at least equals the rate of population growth for a given population, the standard of living for all occupants will decrease - and this decline will hit the poorest hardest of all. And a lower standard of living will not only cut into conveniences and luxuries, but also essentials.

 

The other factor to consider is that even in the event of an ecoonmy which is not growing, and the allocation of productive assets in the economy would not remain fixed - there'd still be growing industries, declinining industries and all of the social dislocations that this process is normally attended with. In short, it would have all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits of a growing economy.

 

Last question - by unearned money are you referring to interest, dividends, and capital gains?

 

In general - it sounds as though you have come across materials that descend directly from Malthus's original treatise, which spawned an argument that's been ongoing since his time. I think the most famous modern incarnation manifested itself in the famous wager between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. If you plug their names into Google you will probably come across some interesting reading.

[prole]

I think it's funny that the wealth of the U.S. is attributed to capitalism itself. Our success is due simply to the fact that we have many resources, and have enjoyed a state of uninhibited, profitable growth since the birth of the country. Only now are we starting to have to deal with the realities of a STABLE economy--one which our well-praised economic system is ill-prepared for. Everything is always about growth, interest, invesment and return, etc etc; the expectation that tomorrow, we will have more money than today. The only way for that to happen in a stable (non-growing) economy is for that money to be TAKEN from someone else. This is why nobody should be entitled to money that they themselves have not worked for.

 

I'm glad you support the abolition of welfare, state support of university students, etc! You're making real progress. But it's sad that you would supplant human drive, spirit, innovation with a government hammer and chains. Stupid statements you made, really. Maybe even top ten material!

 

Fairweather, you seem generally suppotive of of the idea you highlighted in bold above. Are you bold enough to include inheritance in the equation, or do newborn millionaires not make the list with welfare mothers and parasitic intellectuals?

[archenemy]

What do you mean by "stable" economy?

 

not growing. Money neither created nor destroyed, economic homeostasis. Sorry, I'm too out of my element to know how to say this is economic terms.

 

Growth = construction starts = jobs. An economy that isn't 'growing' is in recession.

 

This is exactly the type of economic thought that needs to change. If you read more material coming from the newer branches of economics, you come across "sustainable" economic thought. A good introduction to this is in last month's Scientific American. I have read a number of great books that delve into the subject and it has influenced my thinking quite a bit.

Just a suggestion...I am not trying to imply that I am Master Of Econoimic Thought or nuthin.

[Stefan]

Complete free market advocates crack me up. They argue against hundreds of years of history. Do they even realize what the market was like in America in the late 19th century? Not only did workers suffer, but consumers suffered from monopolistic practices. And we aren't talking about harmless Microsoft monopolies, but monopolies on essential goods. More so, our recessions were more frequent and more severe. Kenysian economics have proven to work very well for everybody involved. Let's be honest...how can anybody claim that bussiness "suffers"?? They still have the riches, buy a vaaaasssstttt margin. I think limiting them from establishing monopolies, destroying the commons and putting workers into deadly labor conditions without a living wage is a pretty reasonable thing. But no, the Republicans would rather push the balance back towards them because, as we all know, life just suuucks today compared to 1890.

 

What about SE Asia? Sweat factories?

 

If the conditions are so bad in the factories, why do people want the jobs so bad?

[Stefan]

Who needs a minimum wage at all?

 

In a free-market system, wage should be entirely determined by those with the jobs to give. Why should the government be stepping on the businessman's toes?

 

I'm tired of paying my guys 7.60 an hour, when I know very well that they would work for 4.00 an hour because they need the work.

 

Again, the government stepping in with their do-good liberal ideas, and taking money out of my pocket.

I'm sick of it, as should be any freedom loving american.

 

The free-market has proven itself capable of providing for the people, nay, the free-market has proven itself able to provide the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD so the people can take care of themselves!, so let's let it do its job.

 

I with ya on a free market.

[archenemy]

Complete free market advocates crack me up. They argue against hundreds of years of history. Do they even realize what the market was like in America in the late 19th century? Not only did workers suffer, but consumers suffered from monopolistic practices. And we aren't talking about harmless Microsoft monopolies, but monopolies on essential goods. More so, our recessions were more frequent and more severe. Kenysian economics have proven to work very well for everybody involved. Let's be honest...how can anybody claim that bussiness "suffers"?? They still have the riches, buy a vaaaasssstttt margin. I think limiting them from establishing monopolies, destroying the commons and putting workers into deadly labor conditions without a living wage is a pretty reasonable thing. But no, the Republicans would rather push the balance back towards them because, as we all know, life just suuucks today compared to 1890.

 

What about SE Asia? Sweat factories?

 

If the conditions are so bad in the factories, why do people want the jobs so bad?

 

Because its better than starving to death?

[Stefan]

Complete free market advocates crack me up. They argue against hundreds of years of history. Do they even realize what the market was like in America in the late 19th century? Not only did workers suffer, but consumers suffered from monopolistic practices. And we aren't talking about harmless Microsoft monopolies, but monopolies on essential goods. More so, our recessions were more frequent and more severe. Kenysian economics have proven to work very well for everybody involved. Let's be honest...how can anybody claim that bussiness "suffers"?? They still have the riches, buy a vaaaasssstttt margin. I think limiting them from establishing monopolies, destroying the commons and putting workers into deadly labor conditions without a living wage is a pretty reasonable thing. But no, the Republicans would rather push the balance back towards them because, as we all know, life just suuucks today compared to 1890.

 

What about SE Asia? Sweat factories?

 

If the conditions are so bad in the factories, why do people want the jobs so bad?

 

Because its better than starving to death?

 

So a job in a sweat factory aint so bad? Becuase the alternative is death?

[archenemy]

Complete free market advocates crack me up. They argue against hundreds of years of history. Do they even realize what the market was like in America in the late 19th century? Not only did workers suffer, but consumers suffered from monopolistic practices. And we aren't talking about harmless Microsoft monopolies, but monopolies on essential goods. More so, our recessions were more frequent and more severe. Kenysian economics have proven to work very well for everybody involved. Let's be honest...how can anybody claim that bussiness "suffers"?? They still have the riches, buy a vaaaasssstttt margin. I think limiting them from establishing monopolies, destroying the commons and putting workers into deadly labor conditions without a living wage is a pretty reasonable thing. But no, the Republicans would rather push the balance back towards them because, as we all know, life just suuucks today compared to 1890.

 

What about SE Asia? Sweat factories?

 

If the conditions are so bad in the factories, why do people want the jobs so bad?

 

Because its better than starving to death?

 

So a job in a sweat factory aint so bad? Becuase the alternative is death?

 

Are you saying that the best way to analyse a situation is in the most simplistic, dualistic manner possible?

[sexual_chocolate]

 

Idealists are frustratingly...well...frustrating, whether their idealism is rooted in capitalist theory or communist theory.

They've both killed countless people, but at least communists do it with a humanitarian goal!

 

I'll put this one in my ammo box to you later. What a stupid statement, even if you made it in jest.

 

I suppose this reaction is based on your assumption that I take a softer line towards the attrocities committed by "communists"?

 

I think you might be mistaking the pointing finger with the moon (as the old saying goes.... ).

 

You seem to disregard the message because the messengers are fucked up.

 

Marx gave a pretty damn good analysis of capitalist function and consequence. Simply because we have Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin claiming the banner shouldn't be a reason for disregarding his thought.

It'd be like blaming Nietzsche for Hitler perhaps.

 

And I will further state that Marx's thought is much more grounded in humanitarian values than capitalism is; his thought was a direct reaction to the horrors of the capitalist model he saw (non)functioning around him during his day. I think he would agree that the condition of joe shmoe has improved, but only through a long worker's struggle (although that condition continues to deteriorate due to the corporatist business influence running this government today).

[prole]

"So a job in a sweat factory aint so bad? Becuase the alternative is death?"

 

Yes. That's the magic of the marketplace! Don'tcha just feel so, so...Free?!

Edited September 12, 2005 by prole

[Stefan]

Are you saying that the best way to analyse a situation is in the most simplistic, dualistic manner possible?

 

I am bringing up a question that has often wondered me.

 

Hell, people sold their siblings or relatives for slavery many, many years ago so they could make money.

 

I am for the free market. If the conditions are so bad at some of these factories in SE Asia, or maybe China, (I am no expert), why do people continually want these jobs? My only conclusion is that these people are willing to accept the conditions given the level of pay they receive. If they received less pay...lets say $.05 for 4 months work then they probably would not want to work there.

 

Its the same question here: Would you pick apples at $1.00 for every 100 pounds for a farmer, or would you pick apples at $15.00 for every 100 pounds for the farmer? Somewhere in there is a market where you are willing to do the work, and the employer is willing to pay you.

 

Now what if those apples were all spiny and such? Like pineapples....causing more difficult working situations....the agreed working wage probably goes up...and you are willing to take the more difficult working conditions.