0
   

The Mass. Fallout

 
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 12:19 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69887 wrote:
that guy is a Nobel Prize winning economist. the most influential economist of the 20th century after Keynes. i think you are attacking his argument from the wrong angle :ban:

Well, I still think he should use a different word instead of "trade unions".

Quote:
yes. but his point was that it is better to be paid little than nothing at all.

I don't see how it'd make a difference. If a company needs to hire a guy, they hire the skilled one. The unskilled one still gets left in the dust, minimum wage or none.

Quote:
no he can't. why do you think people who work for companies like Google or Apple make on average something like $150,000 ? There is no law that says they need to be paid more than $7 per hour. It is the free market competition with Microsoft which forces them to compete for the limited number of highly skilled computer scientists that causes them to give people such salaries.

What if it turns out like American industrialism and everyone gets low wages except for a select few?

Quote:
Fine. Take Mexico then.

Exactly why Mexico is crawling with poverty and underemployment rates is because they have a good system of pay (note that it's underemployment rates, not unemployment rates)? More drug dealers, gangs, etc. Why so many Mexicans are hopping the border into US to get jobs and escape from unemployment or underemployment, or simply being paid to little to support a family?
0 Replies
 
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 12:47 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69889 wrote:
bigot is simply a WORD. do not confuse words for meaning.


I meant it in the strictest definition of the term. You stated that a man's labor is not worth minimum wage. If you have a better term for that attitude than "social bigot," I'm all ears.

Everyone who works in this country deserves a fair wage that supports his/her family, including health care. Anything less is unacceptable in a civilized society. Why should the labor force haul your trash and pick your food; then go home to a refrigerator box in an alley.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 04:25 am
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69897 wrote:
I meant it in the strictest definition of the term. You stated that a man's labor is not worth minimum wage. If you have a better term for that attitude than "social bigot," I'm all ears.


Let's see now. if you look at the definitions from dictionary.com:

Quote:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Quote:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


then the only conclusion that can be made is that YOU are the bigot in this debate. you are the one who is intolerant of any views other than your own liberal ones. i am open minded and willing to debate any point that i raise including the question about how much is labor worth. you are the one who makes blanket statements.

i know it is shocking to you as a liberal that somebody would actually QUESTION your values. after all you're a liberal therefore you're automatically right about everything ! you don't even need to think - you're just always right. yes ?

the problem with liberals such as yourself is the same as the problem with conservatives - neither of you can wrap your minds around the fact that you could be wrong - or the fact that you are utterly brainwashed.

conservatives call you Libtards and you call conservatives Bigots. but you are both essentially the same.

You think you are entitled to use the term Bigot without even knowing what it means simply because you are a Liberal and Liberals always call everybody Bigot. :beat: it is quite sad.

JackFlash;69897 wrote:
Everyone who works in this country deserves a fair wage that supports his/her family, including health care.


don't you think this statement requires proof ? what if i said that i deserved to be happy, and since the only thing that would make me happy is a blue eyed blond girlfriend i would demand that the state provide me with one ?

JackFlash;69897 wrote:
Anything less is unacceptable in a civilized society.


according to whom - God ? oh wait god doesn't exist. but Liberals do - and they're the next best thing - everything they say is automatically true just as if God said it. Of course only idiots believe in god and only very intelligent people are Liberals - other than that these idiots and very intelligent people are exactly the same.

JackFlash;69897 wrote:
Why should the labor force haul your trash and pick your food; then go home to a refrigerator box in an alley.


they don't have to do anything at all. nobody forces them. and nobody has to pay them anything either. or provide them with anything.

it is really quite simple - the concept is called Liberty. you would have heard about it if you knew that this country is a constitutional republic and we have a constitution Wink

But then you're a Liberal. It is simply too much to ask of a Liberal to understand what Liberty means :ban:
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 04:42 am
@NEUROSPORT,
Jack i just hope you realize that all these people like Jefferson etc were all wingnuts.

And the best liberal in history was Hitler.

Hitler was a vegetarian, he championed animal rights. He built great infrastructure projects like the autobahn which created jobs. He was deeply involved with education and children. Last but not least he was "eloquent" and a superstar "messiah" in the eyes of the people just like Obama.

He wasn't black however. That's about the extent of progress of Liberalism.

no wonder bisurge doesn't want to talk about history any more.

here is a great Liberal quote quiz for you:

The People's Cube - Guess Whose Quote It Is
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:26 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69900 wrote:
no wonder bisurge doesn't want to talk about history any more.


It is rather difficult to debate an issue with you when you are so poorly educated in it. All you seem to know are sound bites.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 04:56 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69907 wrote:
It is rather difficult to debate an issue with you when you are so poorly educated in it. All you seem to know are sound bites.


shouldn't that make it easier for you guys to defeat me in an argument :beat:

if all i know is soundbites why do i always win - here or elsewhere :dunno:
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 05:29 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69915 wrote:
shouldn't that make it easier for you guys to defeat me in an argument :beat:

if all i know is soundbites why do i always win - here or elsewhere :dunno:


All I see you winning is the race to :beat:
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 05:47 pm
@btflatt,
That's the problem. You don't always win. Because we're not convinced. I'll tell you this right now: your opinions are different. Both of you think you yourself are right, and not the other person. And here's the thing: you're both not exactly right. Does minimum wage actually harm poor people? Supposedly, yes. It makes the skilled worker get hired more often, theoretically. Also, theoretically, capitalistic competition would spur wage raise. However, in reality, as shown by the industrial development of several countries, no minimum wage simply meant everybody was paid at the lowest price. Even though there was competition, ultimately the laborers were all paid low, and it was their only option.
So I'm done in this debate with both of you. Even though I haven't really argued against Jack because I originally was debating with Neurosport only, I've read some of his posts. This is exactly the thing that separates Democrats and Republicans and why I don't believe in the left-right paradigm: no matter how "trivial" the topics are, Democrats and Republicans will always have different methods of dealing with it. And debating about those methods gets us nowhere because neither side admits the other side is right; you're sort of like Josef, Neuro, except not crazy. Josef always thought that he was winning all the arguments, even though no one agreed with him. His logic? "You guys only disagree because I'm right." That's sort of what you're doing here.
NEUROSPORT wrote:

if all i know is soundbites why do i always win - here or elsewhere

The truth is, nobody has won so far. I've agreed with some of your points even. But you're not willing to agree at all with Jack or me on any of our points. And Jack isn't willing to agree with your points. So NEUROSPORT, I have to agree with Jack on this: you're a hypocrite (Jack claimed you were a "bigot") because you called him closed-minded and unable to comprehend things repeatedly when actually you aren't able to either.

EDIT: Furthermore, debate is not about winning. Even if people agree with you, you haven't "won". And you only think you're winning yourself; both Jack and me don't think you're "winning", nor will many other people on this forum if you bring them in, probably. And it doesn't matter if the homeless guy thinks he's rich because he has $100; every else thinks he's poor. Doesn't matter if the guy holding trillions thinks he's poor; everyone else will think he's rich. And the poor man will continue to live in poverty unless some stroke of ultimate luck comes to him whether he thinks he's poor or not, and the rich man will continue to live in richness whether he thinks he's rich or not.
So whether you think so or not, you haven't won yet. Nobody has. And the point of debating is not to win.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:00 pm
@btflatt,
Also, sorry if I didn't make this clear: "agree" means change an opinion. I changed my opinion about the effectiveness of capitalism vs socialism. If you agree with someone from the beginning, then you naturally agree with them. Even closed-minded people can do that. So by saying nobody ever agreed with you and you never agreed with anybody, I mean nobody has ever changed their opinions to align with yours (in the current argument) and you never changed your opinion... at all.
0 Replies
 
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:09 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69921 wrote:
the point of debating is not to win.


Exactly, the point is to fine tune your own ideologies.

To declare a winner you would need a panel of 9 unbiased judges, and those 9 individuals died from lack of health care last year.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 10:29 pm
@JackFlash,
Sometimes the point is neither to make the other guy change his opinion nor to change your own.

Sometimes the point of an argument is to raise even more questions :eek:

bisurge;69921 wrote:
in reality, as shown by the industrial development of several countries, no minimum wage simply meant everybody was paid at the lowest price


I don't think i tried to deny that. Under mine and your systems both people get paid what they deserve. Only under my system what they deserve is determined by the market ( which may be lower than what you like ). Under your system it is determined arbitrarily - somebody pulls a number like $7.25 out of their ass.

Of course it would be nice to just pay everybody a million billion dollarz. Which is what Auto Workers Union tried to do in Detroit where the workers were paid ( including benefits, pension etc ) on average $150,000 for the same labor that in other countries people don't get anywhere close to that. We all know what happened - now the unemployment rate in Detroit is 50%.

Now as horrible what happened in Detroit is - it is not an accident - but a direct and UNAVOIDABLE result of artificially inflating wages. worst of all it is obvious that NO LESSON WAS LEARNED because the government still will not admit that wealth cannot be generated out of free air. wealth can only come from WORK.

people who don't understand economics ( like Keynes, and 90% of all analysts you see on TV ) believe that wealth can simply be willed into existence by scribing numbers on a piece of paper. which is insane. wealth can only MANUFACTURED it cannot be printed.

if you want to know the truth about economics you only need to read the articles on this page:

Article Page

after that you should be able to see through all the bullsh1t from Keynes, Greenspan and Bernanke.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Mass. Fallout
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 07:41:33