No. There's also non-existence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, too, the welfare of all is bound up in the welfare of each. To deny ownership of property because others lack the means of ownership benefits the poor by making all persons poor exactly how? It takes more poor people to charitably contribute to one another (share the poverty) than fewer people of means to share the wealth. How many poor people gainfully employee other poor people that they can become unpoor?
Precisely how does my personal situational fortuity automatically obligate me to others who are not similarly automatically obligated to me in precisely the same way, beyond my own sense of compassion and charity for those physically and mentally incapable of even nominal self-support? And you're not above holding a figurative rhetorical gun to my head in an attempt to coerce me to conform to your own appraisals of the value of another's charity, denying me my freedom to my establish my own valued notions -- free from interference by public guilt-tripping innuendo. And based on no personal knowledge of my actual history of charity whatsoever. How uncharitable of you. And you presume to lecture me about charity? Guess what I'm thinking. What number greater than zero would you find believable according to your philosophy?
No. Equal opportunity is the guarantee. Not equal result. Yes. If I work harder to earn the same as someone who works not at all, where's the equality then?
What about socially disadvantaged groups? Does greater earning power always translate to working harder?
You mean Progressive Democrats? I was not asked to help them make their personally significant decisions along with them so I don't have to share in the inadequacies of their results. Not my problem First rule of being offered delegated responsibility: No responsiblity without delegated authority, too. Certainly not. Many people panhandle for spare change so they can afford to but more than one lotto ticket. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's right, effort and drive have absolutely nothing to do with it. Sure, some people are born with Down's syndrome, or blind due to no fault of their own and deserve our help. But they are special cases. What seperates one able bodied man from another is not chance. It is free will. Making the decision to be sucessful and then doing whatever it takes to get there. Of course events beyond our control can sometimes intervene. A sudden deterioration in health, an accident, whatever. But you seem to believe that we are pawns with no control over our lives whatsoever. If that were the case, what's the point of living?
I voted "no". The minimum wage is a bad idea and a tax cut is a good idea, so I don't think that a good idea should be tied to a bad idea. If I were to tie something to tax cuts it would be another good idea (but one that is less politically acceptable). Specifically, I would tie tax cuts to spending cuts. -Dale
Minimum wage cuts jobs and/or raises prices you twats. It's simple economics. Why not draw a supply and demand curve to see this? Increase wages.. keep the current employees. Prices rise. Or, lay-off the employees that MW covers to keep the prices the same. Because no one likes price increases. Some cannot afford it (maybe MW earners?). Also other things such as: increase in inflation... higher cost of government social programs for the laid off... increase in illegal immigration... decrease in unskilled labor jobs, some of which provide good experience for "moving up the ladder." Don't think this is likely? Tell that to Wal-mart managers. Almost 70% came from working on the floor at wal-mart. The rest usually come from other retail stores (Target, anyone?). Also.. check this out:http://www.crfa.ca/research/2006/foodservice_profit_margin_inches_up.asp It's about the CANADIAN food service industry. Not the US. It seems minimum wage laws increased the cost of operation 7.7%. Sure, their profits increased by a SLIGHT margin of 0.4% (from a 4.6% increase in sales)... however, you cannot attribute this as a positive effect of increase in MW. Why? IN 2004, only 4.6% of all employees work on minimum age (Source ). So, do you think the increase in MW has caused all of those at MW to eat out more (kind of odd, eh? 4.6% increase in sales... 4.6% work at MW...)? Maybe the average person eats out more? Maybe the average person decides to spend a little more for an extra side order? Or maybe add a salad bar to their order? Considering the person on MW has less to spend than the average person, I doubt these low wage earners will spend much money on eating out considering there are more important things to spend their money on. If I worked at MW, I know I wouldn't spend an hour's (or more) worth of work on one meal. In one hour I could buy maybe 2 meals or even 3 if I buy my own food and cook it myself.
Luck is opportunity met by preparation -- and to be prepared or unprepared is a personal choice. - Neal Boortz. If one wants to spend more time asking for help than finding a source of money, that it their choice. I bet anyone in here that if I felt like it, I could earn $50 looking for something to do outside my current job (and something a 'poor' guy could do). Everyone has 168 hours in a week. Let's say I am poor and I work 60 hours a week.. I cannot make ends-meet. That gives me 108 hours left in the week. I sleep 5 hours a day. Now I have 73 hours left to eat and do whatever else. Say 30 hours of those 78 hours left are spent doing whatever I need to survive (eat, take showers.. driving to and from work). I have 48 hours left. That gives me an average of 6.1 hours left in an average day. Let's round that down to 6. In 6 hours I am sure I can find more money. Maybe I can offer a hand to some guy doing some lawn work. He'll pay me $20 for 2 hours of work. Hell, I would pay someone $30 to cut my grass (and it's not that big.. takes 30 minutes to cut it with an push mower.. and have it edged). Got a baby or a small child that cannot care for themselves? Tough shit... most of the time it's the mistake of the person in poverty (notice I say most of the time... sure, things happen. I do not deny that). Statistics show that a person born into a certain social-class (in terms of income) tend to remain there for the rest of their lives. So it's very likely that this female was born poor, grows older, remains poor, and has a child. She is still poor. Sure, she brought a child in to the world. That's great. I am not suggesting she be denied that opporitunity. However, she needs to realize that it will hurt her situation and her child is likely to be poor in adulthood, too. Or maybe with these 6 hours this person in poverty can learn new skills? Pick up a book and learn plumbing? Go to the library. Homeless can even do this one. How about you come drive by West End, College Park, or downtown here in Atlanta. You'll see most of the homeless doing nothing or begging for money. Yes, few do ask for money. I'd say in the average day, of the 20 homeless I might see, only about 3 or 4 actually ask for money. However, did you know that the average a panhandler makes in a day is about $20-$50? That's about $170-$350 a week. Some even make $600 in a week (if you claim the "good spots."). Surely, even at $170 they would have some money left over after food and maybe a clean t-shirt. Wash up and go to the grocery store instead of McDonalds. Those that don't pan handle can simply do as I said... find some work. Do like the Mexicans do around here.. hang out at The Home Depot and ask for work. Most of the those picking up people there pay about $10 an hour... and it's tax free. That is about the same as making $14/hour legally. Sure, I hate untaxed money. However, as NB said: "Luck is opportunity met by preparation." The opportunity is money that is untaxed. Preparation? Willing to get off your "hand-me-outs" ass and do something.
I'm not quite getting this. 'You wouldn't order a an extra sidedish if you got paid more so minimum wage is bad?' And the other thing I don't get; Would they spend more if there wasn't a minimum wage and have less money? Maybe think before replying?
No. Look, the whole point is that MW cuts jobs and/or raises prices. I was simply providing an example of such. Tell me.. would you rather have a job a $4/hour working 60 hours a week or zero dollars an hour working zero hours a week? The fact is: forcing $5.15 an hour (or whatever) for a job that the MARKET values as $4 an hour is not going to work. I wonder what determines the MARKET value Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And what the hell is with "'You wouldn't order a an extra sidedish if you got paid more so minimum wage is bad?'??" That doesn't make any sense. Seems you do not know how to read. I said: How about critiquing my argument instead of claiming I make no sense and that I should think before posting. Tell me how a minimum wage increase has caused the 4.6% increase in sales in the food service industry in Canada, dispite the fact that MW caused a 7.7% increase in labor costs. Assuming everything else is equal in cost (which they are not.. everything else increased in cost.. read the article).. this means the cost of labor for every $100 they take in increases from $31.10 dollars to $33.49. That is a difference of $2.39. For the 0.4% increase in sales, this means for every $100, they earn 40 cents more. Comparing the $0.40 to $2.39... it doesn't seem to make sense. The MW earners make more money, yet the food service business industry seems to benefit very little from this (if at all). Asume that the $0.40 comes from an equal distribution of income earners (remember, 4.6% make MW and about 95% make more than this), 4.6%*$.40 = $0.0184 of the profit increase. That sure as hell is not a whole lot. And surely the poor eat out sometimes. Now let's compare the numbers again. Spend $2.39 for an increase of $0.0184 from MW earners eating out. [sarcasm]But it's inconceivable that the average guy (or rich guy) eats out more than those with less money. I mean, had this been the case, the $2.39 increase in cost for MW would actually hurt profits and the increase in profit, from their end of the contribution, is negative. And we all know that negative + positive always equals a negative.[/sarcasm]. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why should society force only employers to have to bear the load of seeing that minimum wage workers can acquire wealth beyond their own natural means? Why shouldn't all tax-paying adults in society share the load? Don't get James questioning your charity now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mr. G: It's a moral obligation - something you probably find hard to comprehend. I'm realistic enough to realise that trying to change you would be futile, Mr. G. I am content merely to point out your failings so others can form their own opinions. You are not unique. There are many selfish people in the world. Nice attempt to dodge the question, but too transparent. madanthonywayne: I didn't say that. Spoken like somebody who has never had to struggle. Absane: If some destitute guy rolled up to your doorstep offering to cut your grass, would you give him the job? Really? The reality is: many people would not. You think it is fair to deny children to poor people, just because they are poor? Interesting point of view. I'm sure Mr. G agrees with you. Actually, one of the things I was struck by on a recent visit to the United States was just how many homeless people there are wandering the streets and hanging around public buildings. You just don't see that in Australia. I think it is because Australia has a reasonable welfare system, whereas the American system is based on the kinds of views you and Mr. G are putting forward. What do you think? What's the unemployment rate in the US right now?
That's why I suggested he clean himself up. I remember mentioning that somewhere. Public restrooms? And yes... I would pay someone to cut my grass. I hate cutting it. I would just do like anyone else.. make him do the work before I hand over the money. I don't care if he is homeless or makes $100,000 a week. Or this guy could find someone who has his lawn cut by some other guy. Ask how much he is charging. Offer to charge $5-$10 less. Doesn't work? Ask someone else. Do not stop until you find someone. Keep that customer. Then, ask some more people until you find a second person. Repeat. One... I am not looking to kiss anyone's ass that agrees with me. Two.. I am not denying poor people the right to have children. You missed my point. I am simply stating that to have a child while poor and also complaining that you are poor is a contradiction in my eyes. How can you expect to bring a child in the world and have enough money to get out of poverty? If they want a child.. fine. But don't ask for handouts. If you don't have a child, ask for as few handouts as possible but work as hard as you can to get out of poverty. Welfare... stealing for those that earned money and giving it to those that squander it. Welfare is a great system for those that had a series of bad events occur that threw them into a deep hole. Shit does happen. However if you also pay attention to the poor in the US, most of them not born that way got there due to bad decision making. Have you ever talked to the homeless here? I have... it's amazing that 50% were professional Jaza musicians. Some actually tell me the truth: they were arrested for drug use and just released from prison. Some tell me they missed the rent on their apartment and were kicked out. I can recall a handfull of homeless guys that used to hang out at churches or the Bank of America building. All day. In the morning, the same thing. I used to live downtown and I had to pass them multiple times a day going to a from class. It's amazing. They see me all the time because I am doing something. I see them all the time because they are doing nothing. Do you think 6 months is enough to get back on your feet if you got "unlucky?" Limit welfare to that length of time and that is it. Did you know that here in the US, the more children you have, the more welfare you receive? You'll see welfare families of 6-8 kids. Amazing. 4.6% as of June 2006 (Source )
What the hell do you know about how much I've had to struggle? I worked my way through college while supporting a wife and child. I worked at a grocery store, seven-eleven, a factory, for the government, mowed lawns, did yard work. Whatever it took. All while carrying a full load of classes and I usually had two or three jobs at the same time. Most of the furniture in my families first apartment came from the garbage. We lived on the fourth floor, no air, no elevator, and roaches from hell. Does any of that count as a struggle?
And your's is an empirical obligation you find hard to comprehend. Your realized realisticallity is pretty limited by your pretty low-mass event horizon. I'm flattered by your immitation. Thus Sprach Mr. Charity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
