Minimum Wage

[dixonmassey]

Well then, we have nothing to discuss besides your feelings eh?

We can discuss your mania of grandeur any time.

If you feel this way, every single piece of data you encounter will be skewed to support your assumption.

Unlike to the physical world, being an "unskewed" observer of the social world is not only impossible, but also undesirable (unless you are a social scientist... on the payroll of mighty ones... which precludes even an attempt of being unbiased. LOL.) To conclude that whatever we have now is "natural", "the end of history", etc., to dig out/notice only rosy happenings as an excuse for status quo is extremely PESSIMISTIC, I can't come close to that darkness. Humans have thin paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc. over selfish, greedy trunks. They should at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED. (BTW, the use of "should" implies bias. For great many folks, it's "shouldn't). Otherwise, they'll see only trough "half full" with swill in front of them. Every social order provides an "opportunity" (albeit different in magnitude) to get close to the trough and partake. You propose to see just that opportunity as the only natural driving force and to call that particular view "being unbiased".

But let's play Freud on you. Do you have assumption about the social world? Do you encounter "data" in every day life? Can we consider your insistence on the onlyness of the most natural order Universe ever knew as a result of "feelings" on your part? How come you've got that kind of "feelings"? Is that because you've made it to a certain perch and seeking "legitimation/consecration" of such an achievement? You, not some dirty tomato picker, got there. Which is a proof of you fitting in the "natural order of things", being chosen by Providence, being fitter, being better, etc. Glory to Wes, the anointed. Naturall, every loser questioning the ladder is indirectly questioning your being "....er". Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches. Who wouldn't want to be as high on a perch as you are? Who wouldn't want to be such a illustruous But, they can't, because you are "...er", so the only remedy for them is to drow in their envy and to bark on the wonderful edifice built specifically to reward such Blue eyed Arians as you. How was my Freud?

This is what I've been telling you. This is what you deny and I suspect, will continue to deny - as if you are above it. This is the root of your pompousness, and the source of your continued hatred.

Seeing a billionaire's yacht, seeing enourmous material riches in the West, seeing opportunities for carriers of the right attitude to suck one's ass up the corporate ladder vs. seeing sweatshops, ghettos, dog eat dog world ruled by brain manipulations, etc. As I said, I'm biased. I never pretended to be unbiased. Neither should you.

I do not feel with every blah blah that capitalism is right.

Didn't look that way.

It seems so to me and I haven't seen an argument that overcomes its parallel to nature.

In nature, every bison can stand, eat grass, drink water without paying up to those up the bison's ladder. In the capitalist nature, that's absolutely impossible. Soon, we'll be charged for the right to breathe.

BTW, that's Adam Smith's works inspired Darwin, not vice versa. I.e. humans ideas on economics were transplanted on the nature. In reality, Nature is not all about competition for resources. It's also about symbiont coexistence. Nature is not about suicide, nature is not about hooking up one THIRD of all squirrels on Prozac, nature is not about consumption beyond one's physical needs, nature is not about a sparrow claiming rights on 10000 grains while the rest 1000 of sparrows enjoy 100 grains, Nature is not about a sparrow using 10000 grains it has to put to work 1000 sparrows so that they could bring 10000 grains more to the master. Competition aside, there is little "natural" about capitalism.

Nor have I seen anyone refute that all economic systems are fundamentally capitalist.

What does it mean fundamentally capitalist? People are using money for exchange of goods, I guess ? But let's assume, it is. So what? Evolve or die off. Isn't that "natural" too? Extrapolate current social, economic, human trends into the intermediate future. If you are not going to lie to yourself, there is little there but gloom and possibly doom.

Capitalism is nature. You hate nature, because you think it "unfair".

As I said, there is little natural about capitalism. Just before capitalism, feudalism was "natural" and kings were ordained by God. Before feudalism, Roman senators were as "natural and divinely ordained" as their American counterparts. "Natural", "genetic" are substitutes of a phrase "divinely ordained" for the modern age. The same as appeals to the divine, they are called to legitimate whatever is needed with "higher powers".

You expect your "goddess" to which you repeatedly refer to make it right. And then you seem surprised and disspointed that she does not.

*sigh*

As far as I remember, first, you've claimed that the Goddess will make it right and give each according to his efforts. And if everybody will love Goddess with all heart and soul, then life will be comfortable and meaningful for everyone involved in the worship. Later on, you've redefined the meaning of "comfortable" as a function of one's blessings; effectively saying that, "even a penniless bum can be comfortable under the auspices of the Goddess, if he'll share the space around a heating pipe with another bum(s)". And now, you seems renegade to the phrase "to each his own" written above the entrance of a nazi death camp. Remarkable evolution, I must say fluidity, of thoughts. Mania of grandeur and "to each his own" look well matched though. Stick with this one.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Capitalism is nature.

Capitalism is only nature if you define it so that everything humans do is nature. But then communism would be nature too. And dixonmassey has already given some excellent analogies on how natural feudalism was

Therefore I assume you mean a more strict definition of nature. That this is how nature is meant to work (outside human society). Maybe I have to enlighten you how nature really works.

Currency:
There is no money in nature. No goods are used to trade between specimens of the same species. There are a few species that use gifts during mating rituals. But that is rather exceptional. Hence capitalism is not natural, since capitalism depends on exchanging a currency.

Competition: Members of a species are mostly not in a direct competition with each other. They are most often competing with the environment. As you know more specimens of any given species are born each generation than that can possibly survive (unless there is a change in circumstances). This leads to the demise of most of the new generation. How? Because they are outcompeted by fellow specimens of the species? No, mostly it is their own siblings. Or other species culling them. Such as bacterial infections, viral infections, predators etc. And there is the environment, droughts, wet periods, clod periods, hot periods etc. In conclusion most die not because of competition with members of their own species, but mainly other species, siblings and environment. A condition that is far removed from the ideas capitalism.

Socialism:
Social animals live in social groups and what kind of economical systems do they do have in place you may ask? It is all very diverse. At one side you have the ultimate socialists like the wild dogs of africa. They hunt in packs. They all bring the food home to give to all. Injured dogs are not expelled from the pack but kept alive by the group. In short, a bunch of pinkos. Then you have the dictators of course, such as the naked mole rat. The queen keeps the others submissive by pheromones. They all work for her, and only she can reproduce. And within this system there is a cast difference of workers and bigger protectors. A feudal system.
I could of course go on and on for hours, but without EVER mentioning a capitalist system.

In short. Capitalism is not natural. Socialism is. Feudalism is. But not capitalism.

 

[wesmorris]

We can discuss your mania of grandeur any time.

Lol. Were it existent, it would have little to do with the topic - while your confession of "how you feel to the core of your being" (to paraphrase) is quite telling as to your "argument".

Unlike to the physical world, being an "unskewed" observer of the social world is not only impossible, but also undesirable (unless you are a social scientist... on the payroll of mighty ones... which precludes even an attempt of being unbiased. LOL.)

I agree and stand corrected. I should have been more specific. I meant horrifically and negatively skewed. My bad.

To conclude that whatever we have now is "natural", "the end of history", etc., to dig out/notice only rosy happenings as an excuse for status quo is extremely PESSIMISTIC, I can't come close to that darkness.

Lol. How might you interpret from what I've said that my only capacity is to notice only "rosy happenings"? I notice human activities and find the current state of affairs could be nothing other than natural. There is plenty of greed, violence, etc. and all kind of other horrific bullshit happening all the time it seems. It is my opinion however, that such horrific bullshit is a symptom of the human condition. A nation's choice of economic system merely alters the expression thereof, in the end all the same petty horseshit will come to pass - as it is what people come to value that is the core of the issue.

Humans have thin paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc. over selfish, greedy trunks.

What do you expect from complicated apes?

They should at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED.

My, how kind of you to ignore how human nature actually IS in favor of how you think it should be. In time, circumstances always arrive that require this layer is shed. Divergence of value is a bit of a sticky wicket. But you think you know "how it should be" apparently, so please - impose your BIASED, badly BIASED perspective upon all those you survey, because you're "not into being superior" or whatever the hell lie you tell yourself.

(BTW, the use of "should" implies bias. For great many folks, it's "shouldn't).

Because of course, I'm too stupid to understand - getting all my "fake wisdom" from posters and such. What a pity I am. Pity me, won't you? Lol. So you're saying that "shouldn't" applies as in "They shouldn't at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED."? So you're saying people both are, and aren't ethical enough for you, or rather, some are just ethical enough (I presume those who suck your dick when you drop your dogma on them) for you, and shouldn't bother trying to be more ethical in future generations? Feel free to straighten out your mess.

Otherwise, they'll see only trough "half full" with swill in front of them.

*sigh*

Anything to do with capitalism is all swine and swill eh? LOL. That doesn't sound like the propaganda that was shoved into your skull as a youthful little commie at all. Thank you for showing me what "clear, independent thinking" is all about. How sad you are. If you want to have an argument that could ever possibly persuade anyone, you might want to disguise your hate with more palletable terms... hmm.. but then again, you couldn't pursuade other haters without giving them something to hate. What better to hate than dehumanized people... neo-zombie pigs to be slaughtered for their want of swill. They're not people, trying to get along in a complicated world... they're pieces of shit that threaten you and everything you stand for, so we'll just call them the piggy swine fucktards who want to rape your daughters that they are. Make them a threat so you don't feel so bad when YOUR "paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc." finally peels away and your primal, violent nature and bloodlust - sanctified in the pure waters of your miserable failure - allows you to become the murdering fuck you've always dreamed of being... but only for those who don't suckle from your idealistic tit. Those who do are quite human and quite above all these swill seeking pig zombies.

Right?

Lol.

Every social order provides an "opportunity" (albeit different in magnitude) to get close to the trough and partake.

No, it doesn't. The "caste system" for instance, puts the fucko on all that. It's beside the point however, and I'd agree that most systems have at least a smidge of lattitude.

You propose to see just that opportunity as the only natural driving force and to call that particular view "being unbiased".

No, that's just wrong. First, the opportunity is not a driving force. It's taking the opportunity that drives things. It is "being unbiased" because it does not judge, as you have - all participants to be swine for your slaughter. It facilitates each to find what they can in the system if they so choose. I don't think my perspective is particularly biased - as I'm simply looking at it from a "system of distribution" perspective, without the judgement you've applied.

But let's play Freud on you.

I doubt you're skilled enough, but feel free to try.

Do you have assumption about the social world?

You'll have to be more specific if you want an answer.

Do you encounter "data" in every day life?

I encounter anicdotal (mispelled I'm sure) evidence in every day life.

Can we consider your insistence on the onlyness of the most natural order Universe ever knew as a result of "feelings" on your part?

You could if you like, but it's really the result of my studies in industrial engineering and philosophy. Surely there are feelings associated with them, but given that I used to consider myself a socialist and that via an attempt at a rational analysis of systems over time and my increased comprehension thereof given my education - I do not think it would be a fair characterizaiton to summarize my reaction to what I see as your fundamentally flawed, dogmatic position as either "insistence" or "the onlyness of the most natural order blah blah". But a rebuttal intended to expose what I percieve as significant flaws in reasoning and a negative attitude on your part. In case you're not so english oriented, or too narrow minded to open your brain "attitude" is not something from an inspirational poster. It is a general propensity to see things one way or another regarding a particular topic, or "life in general". As it is easy to see, regarding economic systems like "capitalism" leave you in a bitter flurry of seething disgust.

... to be continued.

 

[Tnerb]

this is a high dollar thread.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Currency:
There is no money in nature. Hence capitalism is not natural, since capitalism depends on exchanging a currency.

Perhaps the point was that capitalism is in line with the nature of man, not animals.

Not to mention that your point regarding there being no competition between members of the same species is patently absurd. Practically every species that reproduces sexually involves males competing for mates. Be it rams butting heads or peacocks showing off their tails. Monkeys and even merecats fight wars over territory.

Nature is chuck full of competition. Survival of the fittest is the engine that drives evolution, and capitalism.

 

[Oli]

Competition: Members of a species are mostly not in a direct competition with each other.

Members of the same species are that species' largest competitor for food.

 

[wesmorris]

How come you've got that kind of "feelings"?

Your question is moot given that its source was appropriately dismantled.

Is that because you've made it to a certain perch and seeking "legitimation/consecration" of such an achievement?

Why, what a pompous assumption. Working to help people with their computer problems and manage the petty quality and computer issues of a small manufacturing company is hardly much of a "perch" in the way you seem to mean it. Neither would I have a need to legitimize nor consecrate that which I already have. I have had all the shit jobs though, and do prefer my current scenario to some that I've had prior. I have no shame however, in any of it. I worked for it and made some decent decisions.

You, not some dirty tomato picker, got there.

Why would you begrudge a tomato picker? Why would you call him "dirty" other than he has to work with dirt? It is YOU putting him down, not I.

Which is a proof of you fitting in the "natural order of things", being chosen by Providence, being fitter, being better, etc.

So now you presume that since I feel that I make a fair wage for the services I provide, this is somehow evidence that I am elitist? Lol. Looks like my doubts as to your skill in the "freudian" regard were extremely well founded. It's important to recognize where your skills lie. Perhaps this is the reason for your failure.

Glory to Wes, the anointed.

Sheez thanks, but I don't see anyone annointing me. Do you? Can you point me in their direction?

Naturall, every loser questioning the ladder is indirectly questioning your being "....er".

LOL. It's pathetic that you're serious. Please feel free to question my "annointedness" all day long. I could give a crap. If you want to talk to my employer about offering the services I provide for a more reasonable rate, please do so. If you're the better man and can work for cheaper than I, I'll gladly step out of the way and find something else to do. Your retarded comprehensive abilities lead me to believe that I won't have to bother. If you're going to play this game, it helps if you have a clue - Mr. Phd.

Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches.

No, it could just be that he doesn't understand. It could be that his world view is shallow and petty and for some retarded reason he thinks someone owes him something when he has done nothing of value in exchange for what he wants. It could be that he was indoctrinated as a child by communists who tout the social and economic injustices of all the piggies at the trough who should die for their wanton quest for more slurry. It could be that the person just doesn't understand much. It could be that no one has taken the time to explain anything to them. It could be that the person doesn't really want the responsiblity that comes with "moving up the ladder", and is making excuses to avoid it. It could be, well.. lots of stuff.

It's funny how you assume everyone must necessarily be jealous of those with lots of stuff. Project much? I like big, sweet houses with pools and blah shit lots oh stuff I guess - but that's a lot of crap to take care of and keep track of. I'm pretty much ok with what I have for now (could use better vehicles and no student loans - but that I have loans and crappy vehicles is my responsiblity). I do not envy those with great responsiblity, and I am disgusted by those who have it and abuse it. I am impressed however by those who take it to heart and have the sack to make difficult decisions.

Who wouldn't want to be as high on a perch as you are?

Lol. How stupid are you? How "high on the perch" do you think I am? Why, for chrissake, would you presume I think myself "high on the perch" and further, why would you presume that I consider those who do not occupy my particular perch to be "unhigh"? Power kind of makes me sick. I do not lust for it nor really desire it much at all. I'm a collaberator. I like to work with people and for them. I like to help out. I like to be compensated for doing so and usually ask for less than I could because I don't like putting people out. Maybe you could talk to my boss for me though. He probably doesn't realize how high my perch is supposed to be and since you have it all figured out, I'm sure you could straighten him out.

Lol. Loser.

Oh my, I just realized that if I were who you claim to be - since you are a doctor and all, I should be kissing your ass because you're more annointed than me. Damn. Sorry sir.

Lol.

*sigh*

Who wouldn't want to be such a illustruous.

So is your phd one of those mail order jobs or something? Sheez you don't seem very sharp for a "doctor". *sigh* Okay, maybe you've got math skills or something. Understanding people is definately NOT your bag.

But, they can't, because you are "...er", so the only remedy for them is to drow in their envy and to bark on the wonderful edifice built specifically to reward such Blue eyed Arians as you. How was my Freud?

Stinking pathetic. A really, really poor go. You probably still want to be paid though, for offering basically nothing of value - right? Lol. Dumbass. *snort* Sorry it cracks me up that you seem to find yourself insightful.

Seeing a billionaire's yacht, seeing enourmous material riches in the West, seeing opportunities for carriers of the right attitude to suck one's ass up the corporate ladder vs. seeing sweatshops, ghettos, dog eat dog world ruled by brain manipulations, etc.

I forget, have you even been here? Are you so sure you're not just makign shit up to bitch about from the stuff you've seen on TV? "ruled by brain manipulations"? Lol.

Here's a theory for you, I'm sure you'll dig this one: If you're dumbass enough to be manipulated by posters and shit on the wall at your work - then you fucking deserve to be manipulated by posters and shit at your work.

As I said, I'm biased.

Which renders you entirely without point in this "debate" (courtique of your lacking comprehensive ability).

I never pretended to be unbiased. Neither should you.

I can pretend to be whatever I like - but I'm not pretending here (besides the part about kissing your ass). I am very biased against negative nancies begging for handouts and offering nothign in return, and then bitching about how they got nothing. I'm biased against assholes posing as intelligent philosophers and touting nothing but dogmatic rejection of a system they don't seem to understand in the slightest. I'm biased against people who judge people as pigs without ever really trying to understand where they're coming from, or the function they serve. I biased against people whose analysis of function incessantly resorts to labelling the participants as swine who do nothign but compete for swill.

I think you're a jackass - but I'll give you this: It takes one to know one.

Didn't look that way.

With your head so far up your ass, how would YOU know?

In nature, every bison can stand, eat grass, drink water without paying up to those up the bison's ladder.

Incorrect.

The bison had to stay away from the cheetahs long enough to do so. That's about all there is to the bison's ladder as far as I know. There's probably more to it which you're ignoring, but maybe not. Here's a clue: Human society and that which they want exceeds that of bison for the most part, as we can note by your seething jealousy of boat owners.

In the capitalist nature, that's absolutely impossible.

Untrue. There are places to go if you're hungry. Or if you'd like you're free to stand around in most public places and eat grass.

Soon, we'll be charged for the right to breathe.

*sigh* Right.

BTW, that's Adam Smith's works inspired Darwin, not vice versa.

And I've stated something to the contrary?

I.e. humans ideas on economics were transplanted on the nature.

Sheez I wonder why. Could you guess for me?

In reality, Nature is not all about competition for resources. It's also about symbiont coexistence.

Ah, and you see how we capitalists are killing our neighbors to take their shit... every single one of us. I killed two of my neighbors today because their boats were bigger than mine. I stole his sweet ass mower too. *sigh* So of course you're SO right. Idiot.

Nature is not about suicide, nature is not about hooking up one THIRD of all squirrels on Prozac

Lol. Squirrels on prozac.

So no other species can commit suicide or take drugs? Hmm.. I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm pretty sure people are part of nature... so at least part of nature takes prozac and kills themselves.

, nature is not about consumption beyond one's physical needs,

Lol. OH? And since it can be done, you are offended by it because you have not been allowed to consume as much as you like? I thought you despised that? Oh, and who the fuck are you to say what nature is about? It would appear that the existence of humans, at least in some cases - contradicts what you tout as "nature".

nature is not about a sparrow claiming rights on 10000 grains while the rest 1000 of sparrows enjoy 100 grains,

No, in nature no animals defend their territory (and thereby the resources available on it). Surely not. None kill for sport, none brutalize each other. None take what is not theirs, blah blah you idealistic ... person who is really silly and idealistic.

Nature is not about a sparrow using 10000 grains it has to put to work 1000 sparrows so that they could bring 10000 grains more to the master.

You see, sparrows cannot communicate to organize such efforts. If they could, can you be sure you wouldn't be completely contradicted?

Use your fucking brain for chrissake.

Competition aside, there is little "natural" about capitalism.

Lol, so you tell yourself to justify all that which you "feel" to the core of your being.

What does it mean fundamentally capitalist?

That in all systems where demand exists (that is, a sense of need), there is competition for resources, and finite supply thereof (which in some cases is 'virtually' infinite). All factors can have a very wide range. Competition can be very simplistic or seemingly non-existent, but under the systematic view - still exists. For instance if 10 bison are drinking from a pool than can accomodate 1000 - the competition for the resource will be seemingly non-existent because the supply is "virtually infiinite". Put 10,000 bison there and you'll see competition indeed, if nothing more than "who got there first". And those without suffer until they, by their desire - find another pool to use or die. What assholes for wanting to survive. I hate bison. Lol. I don't really.

People are using money for exchange of goods, I guess ?

No.

But let's assume, it is.

No, let's not. Since you did, I'll respond anyway.

So what? Evolve or die off.

Pretty much. Adapt or die. In human systems though, this is not really the case. There are social systems in most "modern" societies that support people who fail to adapt. Those who adapt, succeed. Go figure. One of the cool things is that you can seek what you want if you're so inclined. You can also whine and moan all you like if you don't get it. You might not however, be very happy if you choose to do nothing but that. Such is the repurcussion of your choices that you pretend you shouldn't have to deal with. Poor you. Hell you can even ask for help if you don't adapt well, and often times you'll find it! No no wait, you can't because you said nature nor capitalism don't work that way. Poor you again I suppose. Too bad. You want to destroy the system because you can't adapt to it in a way that gets you what you want. Of course you're free to try. You don't really have to, but perhaps that's just your function. The system will eventually crash itself down, to be rebuilt and crash and rebuilt and crash. Such is the nature of systems like it, regardless of the label we choose to put on it.

Isn't that "natural" too? Extrapolate current social, economic, human trends into the intermediate future. If you are not going to lie to yourself, there is little there but gloom and possibly doom.

? The future is unknown, and there is as much a possiblity of great wonders as gloom and doom, but I understand your propensity for the negative. Your attitude is shit, so the world reflects itself that way in your mind.

As I said, there is little natural about capitalism.

Which is of course, just wrong.

Just before capitalism, feudalism was "natural" and kings were ordained by God. Before feudalism, Roman senators were as "natural and divinely ordained" as their American counterparts. "Natural", "genetic" are substitutes of a phrase "divinely ordained" for the modern age. The same as appeals to the divine, they are called to legitimate whatever is needed with "higher powers".

As I've said before "without bullshit to bind us in purpose - we'd be extinct". The bullshit is always there, and there have always been some people who have seen through it. It's just that it used to be okay to kill them, and now you have to do it all secret like to get away with it. As if any economic system keeps that shit from happening. fuedalism, kings, blah blah were all the evil corporate asshats of today (and there are some that are not evil) who are trying to hang onto their station as they see it. I do not blame them for it, nor do I blame the peasants for revolting when the momentum of circumstance allows it.

As far as I remember, first, you've claimed that the Goddess will make it right and give each according to his efforts.

No, you just read it that way because apparently that's what you think I must think. It must be the only thing that can possibily make sense to you as you project your negativity onto my perspective. I think there is no goddess. I think there is a system in which individuals make decisions regarding what they think they need, and what actions they take to get it.

And if everybody will love Goddess with all heart and soul, then life will be comfortable and meaningful for everyone involved in the worship. Later on, you've redefined the meaning of "comfortable" as a function of one's blessings; effectively saying that, "even a penniless bum can be comfortable under the auspices of the Goddess, if he'll share the space around a heating pipe with another bum(s)". And now, you seems renegade to the phrase "to each his own" written above the entrance of a nazi death camp. Remarkable evolution, I must say fluidity, of thoughts. Mania of grandeur and "to each his own" look well matched though. Stick with this one.

Blah blah blah. Tell yourself what you must.

 

[wesmorris]

Survival of the fittest is the engine that drives evolution, and capitalism.

This was the intended point.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You are all worse than a bunch of creationists. Sad fucks who use a raped version of biology to propagate your political views.

 

[dixonmassey]

Why, what a pompous assumption. Working to help people with their computer problems and manage the petty quality and computer issues of a small manufacturing company is hardly much of a "perch" in the way you seem to mean it. Neither would I have a need to legitimize nor consecrate that which I already have. I have had all the shit jobs though, and do prefer my current scenario to some that I've had prior. I have no shame however, in any of it. I worked for it and made some decent decisions.

that's not the absolute height of a perch that counts, that's the fact of you placing yourself above all those dirty tomato pickers and minimum wage slobs that counts.

people have maniacal need to feel themself superior to some other group/person. One doesn't need to become a megamillionaire to do so. For some the white color of their skins is all that's needed; for others, them not living in a trailer park is enough, and so on. For you, being schooled in industrial engineering and self-schooled in philosophy to uncover all those misteries of Universe seems is enough.

 

[dixonmassey]

Why would you begrudge a tomato picker? Why would you call him "dirty" other than he has to work with dirt? It is YOU putting him down, not I.

I've just summarized your open and implied attitudes dispersed around this thread.

So now you presume that since I feel that I make a fair wage for the services I provide, this is somehow evidence that I am elitist? Lol.

You deny lower ones the same feeling. After all, invisible hand distributed fair wages for services rendered throughout the ladder and only such educated and superior guys like you can live fairly on their wage. Those who don't feel fairness shall climb up the piramide and try to dislodge such superior guys, if they can, or they shall redefine their ideas about fairness. Obviously, there is not a shred of elitism about this attitude.

Looks like my doubts as to your skill in the "freudian" regard were extremely well founded. It's important to recognize where your skills lie. Perhaps this is the reason for your failure.

Continuous bringing up "failure", "your intellectual superiority", "my inferiority" and pompous crap like that is totally irrelevant to the subject of minimum wage, it doesn't make your argument any stronger, it doesn't bother me (I really have thick, thick skin, my Dear). All it does is to satisfy your thirst for the "higher" position on a "perch", be it real or virtual. Enjoy. Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.

Sheez thanks, but I don't see anyone annointing me. Do you? Can you point me in their direction?

Invisible hand, "natural" order of things, your superior comprehensive abilities/genes, and all that valuable knowledge, no tomato picker can imagine, that you've absorbed.

Please feel free to question my "annointedness" all day long. I could give a crap. If you want to talk to my employer about offering the services I provide for a more reasonable rate, please do so. If you're the better man and can work for cheaper than I, I'll gladly step out of the way and find something else to do.

How could earth worm like me overshadow your anointed highness in the front of your employer? That's impossible cause you are such a superior guy, chosen by Providence among millions upon millions of losers to be where you are now.

Your retarded comprehensive abilities lead me to believe that I won't have to bother. If you're going to play this game, it helps if you have a clue - Mr. Phd.

If one will delete pompous crap, insults, verbosity from your posts, too little will be left to comprehend. Even such a lowly being as me could get it. "I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

“ Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches. ”

No, it could just be that he doesn't understand. It could be that his world view is shallow and petty

truly, only shallow folks can't see all your greatness perfectly built in the great natural scheme of things. Since you don't even allow the thought that people above you on the perch of life could be "shallow and petty", that's petty lowlife from below don't see all your splendour and is drowning in envy.

and for some retarded reason he thinks someone owes him something when he has done nothing of value in exchange for what he wants.

that's your retarded, sucked of arse presumption. Only lowllife from below could want something for nothing, isn't it?

It could be that he was indoctrinated as a child by communists who tout the social and economic injustices of all the piggies at the trough who should die for their wanton quest for more slurry.

Contrary to what movies about Rembo imply, communist indoctrination was extremely ineffective. Commie countries were not run by the brain manipulations, PR campains, etc. they were run by the rude, clearcut force. That's in the Western neo totalitarian states, propaganda and brainwashing have risen to the unbelievable heights of efficiency and totality.

It could be that the person just doesn't understand much.

Obviously, uderstanding is reserved only for the guys who happened to shares your social darwinistic views. Clinical case of the maniacal mania of grandeur.

It could be that no one has taken the time to explain anything to them.

Poorly hidden mania of grandeur. You've figured it out, haven't you? Discovered a tree of wisdom somewhere and sucked it dry? Societies are not rational entities to be explained, great deal of "feelings" is required to make a judgement.

It could be that the person doesn't really want the responsiblity that comes with "moving up the ladder", and is making excuses to avoid it.

If you are not completely brain dead yet, you would notice that moving up the ladder is a great way to avoid responsibility. Actually, great deal of working time of "responsible" ones is spent on covering their arses by any means necessary. Thankfully, the higher one is up, the more "arse covering" means he has.

 

[wesmorris]

I've just summarized your open and implied attitudes dispersed around this thread.

But you do nothing to support your summarization. You didn't quote me once. If this is what you take from my words, then perhaps there is an impossible gap of relation between us. Of course I attribute this to the fact that you have dehumanized anyone who would remotely attempt to support capitalism, as I've explained above.

You deny lower ones the same feeling.

You simply can't support that assertion. You're making shit up.

After all, invisible hand distributed fair wages for services rendered throughout the ladder and only such educated and superior guys like you can live fairly on their wage.

You miss the part where I explained that above in a manner that precludes this? There is no invisible hand. If you take a job, you've decided the wage is fair. Your personal expenses can vary greatly dependent upon your choices and that which you desire. You may have to find a way to get a higher paying job or start a business if you don't think you make enough money. How complicated is that?

Those who don't feel fairness shall climb up the piramide and try to dislodge such superior guys, if they can, or they shall redefine their ideas about fairness. Obviously, there is not a shred of elitism about this attitude.

It's not an attitude. It's a statement of how things are. If it were an attitude I'd be constantly referring to how great it is or how badly is sucks.

Continuous bringing up "failure", "your intellectual superiority", "my inferiority" and pompous crap like that is totally irrelevant to the subject of minimum wage, it doesn't make your argument any stronger, it doesn't bother me (I really have thick, thick skin, my Dear).

I have no interest in your skin. I have interest in why you think as you do. I've told you repeatedly I think it's because you see yourself as a failure. How I think of you in that regard is irrelevant. How I think of you doesn't directly impact how you see everything in your world. That you are pissed off because you think you've gotten a raw deal is what makes your perception of your own success or failure relevant.

All it does is to satisfy your thirst for the "higher" position on a "perch", be it real or virtual.

As is typical of our exchange, you completely miss the point.

Enjoy. Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.

Lol. Why not? It's always possible. I guessed however, that you'd be way way off. Perhaps it's just my denial? The thing is I know me pretty well, and I know that if I am better or worse than you at whatever - I don't feel inferior or superior as a person. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence.

I also feel like I'm pretty good at understanding mind and humanity in general, at least to some extent. My anicdotal evidence has led me to think this is most likely true. If I have a "bag", that's probably part of it. Blah blah. That I told you before that because I may be better at comprehending one subject than you, or that you may be better than me at a particular thing - doesn't relegate either to "lesser" or "greater" as a person.

But: if it's a "delusion of granduer", let's expose it. Please feel free. You're missing so far, but maybe you'll get around to it.

Invisible hand, "natural" order of things, your superior comprehensive abilities/genes, and all that valuable knowledge, no tomato picker can imagine, that you've absorbed.

What I think I understand how little to do with your incessant demeaning of the social status of a tomato picker.

How could earth worm like me overshadow your anointed highness in the front of your employer?

Who said you were an earthworm? Do you think I mean it if I insult you? I don't have a clue who you are. I have a clue as to the words you've spewed on this board and I insult the words. You are an earthworm for skewing things to some degree where I'm "annointed" in some capacity.

That's impossible cause you are such a superior guy, chosen by Providence among millions upon millions of losers to be where you are now.

Lol. By that reasonng everyone is chosen to be where they are right now - including yourself and the guy with the boat you seem to covet.

If one will delete pompous crap, insults, verbosity from your posts, too little will be left to comprehend. Even such a lowly being as me could get it.

Then why bother? Asserting some annointedness of your own? By your reasoning that is the only possible reason right?

"I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

No, FOOL. This is why it's sad that you're so bitter. You skew skew skew to the bad bad bad. Let's examine the statement and modify it to what has actually been said, rather than the twisted perspective your feelings demand of it:

"I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself".

For the moment, I have a little bit of stuff. I can almost support my family comfortably. If you don't have any stuff yet - we should probably brainstorm to figure out how to help you get yours. How much stuff do you want anyway? Blah blah, anlaysis and problem solving.

Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

Because that's not the thought, it's how you paint the thought to justify your dehumanization of swine and their offensive swill seekage. It's because your "feeling to the core of your being" makes it goddamned near impossible to get through to you about any of this. Your disgust is thicker than your skin and makes communicating with you virtually impossible.

I've spewed thousands of words yet still you've apparently understood none of them.

 

[wesmorris]

And I should note: You've done nothing but denigrate a system, offering no support of a viable alternative nor reasons that it is a more efficient or "humane" system.

 

[wesmorris]

You are all worse than a bunch of creationists. Sad fucks who use a raped version of biology to propagate your political views.

Well then doctor monkey, you sad fuck - why don't you and your bloated knowledge of the "real" biology - poke holes in the reasoning rather than like your compatriot, attempting to dehumanize people for holding a view that you find so despicable.

Are you really taking yourself seriously? I think you're just venting. This is a good place for that.

Rail on me then monkey man. Make me your sciforums sacrificial capitalist pig.

 

[wesmorris]

Point of fact for my newfound commie friend:

Capitalism is not the source of your apparent lack of happiness or satisfaction.

YOU ARE.

You'd be just as miserable wealthy, or as the leader of the Communistic Republic of America (once you've killed all the swine).

I have attacked you repeatedly because bitches who whine and moan about the doom and gloom they forsee all have the same problem: they refuse to deal with their problems and instead attempt to make it someone else's.

So from the kindness of my heart - and my general annoyance with whiners such as yourself, I have attempted to expose your problem for you.

You have clearly demonstrated that you're irrational and have no real basis for you complaints about capitalism besides your "feelings" and twist any evidence you encounter to support your feelings, rather than attempt to determine if your "feelings" are misplaced or well-founded. You simply presume them indisputable, and dehumanize anyone who threatens them such that you don't have to bother to sort them out.

You have thusly decided that the problem is not yours, but mine since I've challenged you on them and repeatedly insulted them.

(which kind of demonstrates my point)

I'm sure you'll find comfort in resigning me to the status of an unfeeling pig with a "Clinical case of the maniacal mania of grandeur" and a bloodlust for swill.

*sigh*

Best of luck to you.

 

[zanket]

Do these idiots actually think they would be helping ANYBODY by raising minimum wage? Simple economics shows that if something, say labor, costs more; you buy less of it. So a mandatory increase in minimum wage would simply result in fewer jobs.

What brilliant logic! Why didn't I think of it? More jobs = good. Less jobs = bad. It's so simple! Sweatshops? Good! Republicans are smart!

 

[wesmorris]

Oh, how doubly brilliant to presume that any low paying job qualifies as "working in a sweatshop".

Please go on. I'll take notes and try to soak up some of your obvious superiority - in vain I'm sure.

I should learn to accept my lowly station.

Oh and it's doubly DOUBLY brilliant to correlate political affiliation and intellect.

*is amazed*

 

[zanket]

OK, if you insist... We had legal sweatshops in the US before the minimum wage law. Afterwards we did not, and now anyone who has so much as a green card can easily get a job making the minimum wage; there is no shortage of those jobs despite the minimum wage law.

Given how long it has been since the last raise, were the minimum wage raised a dollar then almost certainly anyone who has so much as a green card could still easily get a job making that wage. And then that raise would trickle up to the middle class. (Trickle up works, trickle down does not.) The standard of living of the masses would increase at the expense of the few who already have more than enough. Some businesses that heavily depend on foreign buyers would be hurt, but most of the rest would be okay because their competition would be paying the same higher wage.

Is it dumb to continuously shoot yourself? If so, then Republicans are indeed dumb. (The voters that is. The politicians who play them are smart.)

 

[dixonmassey]

But you do nothing to support your summarization. You didn't quote me once.

Let's say I'm too lazy to pull out “trigger” sentences/words to prove something. That's my general impressions. It's not a science paper to cite a luminary to justify my impressions. If you insist, I can pull few of those up.

If this is what you take from my words, then perhaps there is an impossible gap of relation between us. Of course I attribute this to the fact that you have dehumanized anyone who would remotely attempt to support capitalism, as I've explained above.

The above accusation of “dehumanization” coming from you sounds otherworldly. It's just the same as being scolded by Jack the Ripper for hitting a deer. You write a rare sentence without questioning my sanity, mental adequacy, successfulness, bitterness for having the views I have. I guess those things are not included in the

“ You deny lower ones the same feeling. ”

You simply can't support that assertion. You're making shit up.

Yes, I can support that assertion, if I'll raise my head above the personal trough and look on the system as whole (that includes other countries). By sanctifying pyramidal, hierarchical structure as the only “natural” you “bless” a large chunk of the “unfit to rise” to be on the dead bottom. Generously, you redefine their level of comfort as being able to share a roach infested room in slums and to split a bowl of rice once in a while. But you are too generous, real world isn't. It doesn't matter, if there is a negligible probability for one to diffuse from the bottom to top/middle. Most will never diffuse. That's impossible in principle. Bottom is not a bunch of CEOs and lawyers working their way through law schools. Bottom is fairly permanent for all practical purposes. That's statistics. Otherwise, the human pyramid would be too unstable for the mighty (and middle) ones to enjoy the life more or less peacefully. One gets to the top (or in the middle) to stay there, not to share space with upstarts or, Hell forbid, fall down.

The purer capitalism the more permanent and broader is its bottom. That's the basic instinct of the Pyramid – maximization of the profit flowing to the top, which demands as broad bottom as possible. Average westerners are enjoying a status of world's working aristocracy (subdivided within itself into super aristocracy and plebeians). That's status was fought for by the previous generations, not given by the kindness of the invisible hand (2 WW helped a lot too). Mistakingly, you think about the bottom as a ghetto/trailer parks where poor black/white folks live by on welfare, minimum wage jobs and drug sales. But that's not the right place to look, dear. That's not capitalism with its natural Hollywood grin. That's Neo Roman plebeians held in check by combination of the rude force, welfare, “mass cult”, etc.. As the Roman Aristocracy, American one doesn't have use for the great many of the citizens of Empire. Slave labor is cheaper elsewhere, or it can be brought in. You shall look into Latin American, Asian slums, where super exploitation was exported, to see the real beauty. Those slums will come here sooner or later. If that's too far too look at, you could give a fuck to learn the history of your own country.

There is no a shred of the historical evidence to support “if everybody will run hard, everybody will have a comfortable existence in a pyramid” crap, unless one will apply your “bulletproof” Jesuitical redefinition of the word “comfortable”. Then, even Hoovervilles and sharecropping, or even slavery were not so bad. I even will not touch the vast subject of “not by the bread alone”.

You never have applied your superior knowledge of the human nature and industrial engineering to the beloved Pyramid. Allah forgive, I don't call you to refute its naturalism and superiority. But at least you could give a minuscule thought about how it's being built and maintained. Is it sheer self-organization or it has elements of “creative design”? If it has elements of creative design, who're designers and major benefactors? If it's being designed anyway, why it's so blasphemous to ask to consider interests of those at the bottom, while considering interests of those on the top seems to be a must?

You miss the part where I explained that above in a manner that precludes this? There is no invisible hand. If you take a job, you've decided the wage is fair.

Or, you want to eat and sleep under a roof not under the stars.

Your personal expenses can vary greatly dependent upon your choices and that which you desire. You may have to find a way to get a higher paying job or start a business if you don't think you make enough money. How complicated is that?

It's incredible complicated for your creed, who seems is incapable to raise the head and look around systematically. It's not about a small probability of one is moving up, it's about absolute improbability of significant number of the people moving up. It's about NOT accepting a small carrot of probability of the personal “tunnelling” as a substitute for the decent (in the common understanding of the word) existence bought with one's labor. Was legal “tunneling” of a slave to the freedom possible 150 years back? Hell, yes, it was (for the right kind of a slave). There is nothing sacred about slavery, there is nothing sacred about its modern wage modification.

It's not an attitude. It's a statement of how things are. If it were an attitude I'd be constantly referring to how great it is or how badly is sucks.

Is questioning my sanity and bitterness in every other sentence equivalent to “statement of how things are” or that questioning involves a little bit of the certain kind of attitude?

I have no interest in your skin. I have interest in why you think as you do. I've told you repeatedly I think it's because you see yourself as a failure. How I think of you in that regard is irrelevant.

I don't give a fuck why you think as you do, even though I have my suspicions, but they are irrelevant. All I want is an argument. So far, all I get is “appeal to the divine (natural) + pointing to the half full trough you&Co enjoy + questioning my bitterness and sanity.” Questioning bitterness, loserness, sanity of everyone questioning the status quo, isn't that as old as Rome (at least)? Be more inventive.

How I think of you doesn't directly impact how you see everything in your world. That you are pissed off because you think you've gotten a raw deal is what makes your perception of your own success or failure relevant.

You beamed nano probes under my skull to judge? Or you've placed yourself in my shoes (the size/kind of which is quite unknown) and made a judgment for yourself? Try the third option, “there is NO natural law connecting univocally the fullness of a trough, one enjoys, with the kind of the thoughts one has.” I know, it's incomprehensible for you, but just accept it as a postulate. Add one more to your collection. Or maybe this will help, imagine yourself losing a job (I know you'll be the last one to leave the board) and finding no other for long time. Imagine me winning a lottery . Imagine us barking on the subject of the minimum wage after that. What would change on your part?

As is typical of our exchange, you completely miss the point.

Missing the point is rather a rule than an exception among “Freudian” crowd. If I missed it, I did just as an average professional in the field, except that I didn't charge $100/hr for my “revelations.”

Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.

Lol. Why not? It's always possible.

Because, obviously, I don't value it as much (if at all) as you do. I understand you need that shit, Without poor ole Freud your argumentative powers would shrink N fold. Without appeal to the natural order of things – almost nothing would be left.

The thing is I know me pretty well, and I know that if I am better or worse than you at whatever - I don't feel inferior or superior as a person. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence.

Let's assume you are walking on a street and see (really) hungry man begging for food/change, you just walk by while staffing a fat piece of something inside of your mouth and thinking, “gee, I don't feel superior or inferior to that man. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence. Am I a good guy or what?” Actually it does define a lot in the world you live.

I also feel like I'm pretty good at understanding mind and humanity in general, at least to some extent.

I never doubted that you've partaked of the fruits of the Universal wisdom tree. You've just forgotten to “regurgitate” few thousands times to split large pieces of the premanufactured knowledge into smaller, less obvious pieces.

What I think I understand how little to do with your incessant demeaning of the social status of a tomato picker.

Is it humanely possible to demean the social status a laborer “clearing” $1-2K/year and frequently living in dug outs hidden from the “cultured” public like you? The young offspring of the cultured ones may kill/beat to selfactualize. Glorious free market on both sides of the border did demeaning, not me.

You are an earthworm for skewing things to some degree where I'm "annointed" in some capacity.

I could be skewing things. However, you anointing yourself in the center of the absolute Truth is kind of funny. You do have a thing or two with mania of grandeur. Have you ever tried Freud on yourself?

Lol. By that reasonng everyone is chosen to be where they are right now - including yourself

Being CHOSEN to be where YOU are is all that counts. The tonnes of losers chosen for the lower perches of life just underline your highness. Sure, you are not as high as BG but high enough to feel gooood. Losers from below rarely think that they are chosen to be where they are. They rather trained to perceive their place as a punishment by sweet baby Jesus. Remember, that's having somebody below on the perch is important, the absolute height of a perch is important too, but not as nearly as much.

and the guy with the boat you seem to covet.

Don't transplant your subconscious desires on me. I don't covet things of the rich per se. I really need 180 degrees lobotomy to even imagine me wanting a yaht and all the extravagant stuff rich folks pleasure themselves with. That's why I'll never be rich

“ "I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought? ”

No, FOOL. This is why it's sad that you're so bitter. You skew skew skew to the bad bad bad. Let's examine the statement and modify it to what has actually been said, rather than the twisted perspective your feelings demand of it:

That's not skew, that's condensed summary of your posts. And it's rather closer to the truth than not. I don't pretend on the absolute truth though. Since it's absolute, and since you've figured it out already, I deduct that whatever I'll come out with cannot be an absolute truth unless its mimicking your precious revelations and pondering.

For the moment, I have a little bit of stuff. I can almost support my family comfortably. If you don't have any stuff yet - we should probably brainstorm to figure out how to help you get yours.

It's not about my stuff. It's not about your stuff. It's about looking above the personal trough and stop being a little rat (at least in one thoughts, it will hurt not be a rat in practice). There is fairly fixed (buy constantly increasing) number of non living wage jobs. You being a successful rat and getting stuff just means that somebody else will fall down the ladder. Conservation of the human mass (it's not as exact as conservation of the material mass, but it's fairly adequate in the absence of “booms” and busts). Even freaking rats are social animals. You propose to turn into an asocial rat, plan and run, run to get goodies. Why it's such a blasphemy to look at the pyramid making us to run harder and harder for less and less so that those on top would have more and more? I can't get it. You have a more or less decent chance to run and bring stuff largely because rats in the previous generations didn't consider themselves “independent” runners. Besides, the pyramid you are running in is a colossus built on sand. You running hard won't mend that.

.

Because that's not the thought, it's how you paint the thought to justify your dehumanization of swine and their offensive swill seekage. It's because your "feeling to the core of your being" makes it goddamned near impossible to get through to you about any of this. Your disgust is thicker than your skin and makes communicating with you virtually impossible.

Why exactly me writing about swill is dehumanizing, while the Pyramid forcing large chunk of people to behave like swine in a feedlot is nearly PERFECT?
One needs thousands of pages and years and years of research to describe a society in all its “non dehumanizing” fullness. Obviously, I'm lacking time, desire and brain to give complete humanizing account of the people running in the dehumanizing conditions. However, allegories are never intended to be 100% or even 70% reflection of the object. They are just broad generalizations of human conduct and experiences called to underline the most unattractive features of the “object”. You don't see any value in satire too, I guess. I don't see many flaws with “pig in a feedlot” allegory. It highlights many of the unattractive sides of the consumerist societies guided by masters, who diligently “preoccupy” the pigs with race to the trough, for the pig not to pay attention to the true purpose, true masters and true benefactors of a feedlot (and Allah forbid a pig to think about the broad ramifications of its being fed on a feedlot).

 

[wesmorris]

"Why exactly me writing about swill is dehumanizing, while the Pyramid forcing large chunk of people to behave like swine"

No, not circular at all.

I already explained above. When you refer to people as pigs, you don't have to consider their humanity, because they're pigs - to be slaughtered for your benefit. It places you above them, in exact contradictions to the claims you make about how you feel about your station.