Author Topic: A Good Question.  (Read 1286 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2023, 08:28:18 PM »
So, a couple of things.

You take every other category of theft, and I mean *every* one, add them all up, and it is significantly less then estimated wage theft. As in, employees being screwed out of the agreed upon compensation that they are due for their labor. I don't think shoplifting is moral or right. I also don't think it's a sign of the apocalypse. Lots of other, higher level theft going on that is actually hurting working class people, not a corporation's bottom line.

I'm also not getting the conservative kickback on the economy here. They all complain about how no one wants to work anymore, meantime they're complaining about minimum wage jobs. Good lord, if you go off of federal minimum wage I'd be very interested to see what parts of the country you could even rent a studio apartment on minimum wage. It's not flagged to increase with inflation, and every time a vote comes up to increase it conservatives get on the House floor tearing their shirts about how it will destroy America.

I mean...okay? Obvious BS, but where I get confused is ya'll immediately turn around and fight against bringing in immigrants to work for super low wages, because they're used to being treated like *censored*.

Pick a lane, guys.

Stop calling it "minimum wage jobs" as if a first-time employee must support a family with the wages. If it is cheaper to put in a self-serve kiosk at McDonald's - then that is where the industry will end up. The only salvation for first-time workers who need to learn how to earn is to accept starting wages and work their way up with increasing competency. Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

The mindset that needs to be fixed is the USA: "I deserve a high wage without earning it!" A company I worked for was an engineering-expert emergency-type solution for Daimler/Chrysler that was called in when their inhouse engineers had problems. We were also called in to tutor all factories how to use all the new machinery as it was developed for the assembly line. When Chrysler opened up a line in Mexico, the new employees there were so pleased for a chance to work for good wages, that they actually did good work. They did what was needed without dragging their feet and sabotaging the line to get out of work. In the USA plants have whole lots with thousands of vehicles in it that have vehicles with flaws that need repairing before being released for sale. In Toluca, there was no such lot, because the Mexican workers using the same machines as here in the USA made them without flaws. Here in the USA our techs would grab a white smock and a clipboard and stand at an assembly-line station, and miraculously, no flaws were found from that area, so long as the tech was standing there.

IOW. one must learn how to work, and a minimum wage just is more of the same at victimization.

Immigrants may actually do a better job as home-grown workers - but they also accept lower wages - getting paid real wages, like in Toluca, is part of the draw for illegals to pay the Cartels to cross the border. There are good and bad from these possibilities - but anyone who decides to break the law just to come here has already proved themselves criminal.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2023, 08:37:44 PM »
That's certainly a point of view that someone could choose to have, for sure.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2023, 08:39:08 PM »
BTW, did anyone respond to the huge number of gotaways that have come into the USA? 19 terrorists brought down the Trade Center Towers and hit the Pentagon. Is the potential worth it?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2023, 09:03:03 PM »
I'm not sure what sort of response you think would be apropos. It's been a couple decades, and obviously some of the relevant laws have changed, but IIRC the majority of the hijackers were in the country legally. If your point is that it's futile to try to stop a tiny, committed handful of people who mean to do us harm from getting into the US, I absolutely agree with you -- but that point would seem to undermine your larger argument.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2023, 12:53:05 AM »
Quote
Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2023, 01:39:02 AM »
Lambert, I really am curious about this.

Why is the federal minimum wage not linked to inflation, and why hasn't it ever been?

Just making up numbers now, but if the minimum wage is 7.50 and inflation is reported to be ten percent...seems to me minimum wage should go up by 75 cents. Can you explain why you think this shouldn't happen?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2023, 01:41:53 AM »
Quote
Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

He's old, and he grew up in a Boomer economy where he literally had everything handed to him. He's unable to understand that things have changed. Perhaps a bit blunt, but that's your answer.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2023, 02:41:24 AM »
Quote
Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2023, 02:47:10 AM »
The mindset that needs to be fixed is the USA: "I deserve a high wage without earning it!"

If by "high wage" you mean the ability to pay rent and subsist on your wage, then I'd say working the shift with due diligence means you "earned' it, wouldn't you? Unless you are implying that the ability to pay for basic bottom-priced needs constitutes a "high wage"?

You may want to consider what "inflation" means and consider what it implies that inflation in one sector, e.g. real estate prices, does not match the inflation in other sectors, i.e. wage levels, over time. What do you make of that? How does that fit into your idea of how people in the USA are feel entitled?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2023, 07:51:12 AM »
"Stop calling it "minimum wage jobs" as if a first-time employee must support a family with the wages"

My friend, please stop putting words into my mouth. What I said was the vast majority of the country, this hypothetical person wouldn't even be able to afford a studio apartment on minimum wage. I didn't even bring up kids and a wife. You're the one bringing that up.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2023, 08:13:22 AM »
I mean it was that socialist Henry Ford who felt he should pay his workers enough so that they could afford the cars they were making. How dare he.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2023, 09:12:08 PM »
Quote
Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.
.
Don't know if we have a Hall of Fame for posts. If not, look at this. It's my argument

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2023, 07:50:09 PM »
Quote
Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.
.
Don't know if we have a Hall of Fame for posts. If not, look at this. It's my argument

If that is your argument, you need to go back to school and find our about real history.

This is a portion of an essay I wrote:
Quote
The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.

In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that
Quote
Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.
Quote from: Folsom
The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.
Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of Michigan, Folsom wrote:
Quote
When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.

Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business. Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources— lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2023, 08:39:16 PM »
It's remarkable that you think this excerpt from your essay is at all relevant to the statements you quoted above, putting aside whether in fact it's accurate.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2023, 11:17:43 AM »
No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2023, 11:40:15 AM »
I'm not even sure if William made a point.

His essay seems to say that centralized government is bad, and the oppression of the working class in England during Dicken's time was exaggerated.

But just because centralized government is bad does not mean that the working class in England were not oppressed, exploited and made to be wage slaves.   ???

I read that Sadler's bill limited the workday to 10 hours.  Does anyone want to argue that forcing workers to do more than 10 hours of grinding physical labor each day isn't a form of slavery?  And the fact that they had to write a bill to codify that does not mean that such practices were at least fairly common at the time?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2023, 11:57:02 AM »
No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

We weren't talking about government  :P

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2023, 11:57:21 AM »
Quote
Does anyone want to argue that forcing workers to do more than 10 hours of grinding physical labor each day isn't a form of slavery?
The libertarian position on this is that no one in that scenario is forced to work more than 10 hours; they choose to do so, if the alternative is starvation for themselves and their children. They chose to have kids; they chose to not have valuable skills; they chose to not die. Coercion is not compulsion, to a libertarian.

Compelling a business to not offer more than 10 hours of daily labor to someone who would need to work more than 10 hours a day to meet their financial needs is, to a libertarian, actually a form of harm; the worker suffers because they cannot work enough to earn sufficient income, and the business suffers because its freedom to engage in private contractual agreements has been restricted.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2023, 11:59:37 AM by Tom »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2023, 12:14:31 PM »
No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

We weren't talking about government  :P

A. He always is, and I think it's implied. No need for a minimum wage, if people are taking the jobs it's better than starvation for them. No need for OSHA, if people thought it was unsafe they wouldn't work there, it's better than the even more dangerous jobs. No need for child labor laws, it's up to the family if they want their nine year old to make shoes in Indonesia.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2023, 12:45:21 PM »
A. He always is, and I think it's implied.

The original complaint was about people thinking they deserve a higher wage, which would be true with or without a minimum wage. His argument was about people who don't deserve a good wage because they 'need to learn how to earn', which isn't really about the government but about the 'greedy' mindset of the working class.