|
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 04:18 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
As the lone superpower and the leader of what's left of the free world, what obligation does the United States have to export freedom to oppressed peoples and what form should this export take? What obligation do the oppressed people have to secure their own liberty and are we made safer and freer by assisting them?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 04:52 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Our country has an obligation to do what we pay them for with our tax money, govern us and not the whole world.
Safe or free....that's usually a choice in itself isn't it? With the amount of oil we consume, we must remain on good terms with our global neighbors that provide that oil. We sell them things, they sell us things, everyone can get along. We start stepping in and playing master of the house is what generally causes us every sort of problem we have with those other countries. We don't have the right to police anyone else, especially when our own house isn't particularly in order. It's hypocritical and not what we're paying for.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 07:40 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Well, we have to do some of what we've done.
I actually believe in the US as stabilizer for the world economy. It WILL be somebody and better us than china.
But I think we can't handle that if our people don't know anything about the outside world. I have actually met plenty of foreigners who love Americans personally. They really admire our straightforwardness, personal sense of right and wrong and work ethic. The last person to pay us this compliment told me this over drinks a few weeks ago- she grew up in Iran. But they don't get how we keep screwing up internationally.
Think about it- whatever people in Florida and Ohio know about global politics, that was the deciding factor in the lives of millions around the world. I'm sure there are some smart folks there- but I don't think most of them could find Iraq on an unmarked map.
I'll also say that over time- it isn't democracy if only Americans determine the fate of the world with our votes. If none of them can vote- thats one thing. If we listen to their opinions, that is another. But lately, much of the world does have democracy (and was getting better before this decade from hell) and they don't agree with us. Presuming that this already constitutes somewhat of a world society- is THAT situation democracy? or something else? To me, it sounds like what Rome faced- when its sphere of influence outgrew its citizenship.
So I'd say there are ups and downs to us wielding this sort of power in an active way. I think the best and most fair thing we can do is keep pushing free trade, push OUR companies for something akin to a universal minimum wage and start backing away from aggressive nation building. We've also got to sell the concept of global leadership to the American people as something they must take seriously.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 15:02 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So , just to pull a hiostorical precedent out of thin air for the sake of discussion, were we obligated to liberate France from the Nazis?
Boy, Danny, I saw so many rabbits I could chase in your post, but I'm trying to stay on topic.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 15:58 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
were we obligated to liberate France from the Nazis?
Well, the Nazis declared war on us, so liberating france became a strategic goal.
I know you're a libertarian, but you must realize that it's an even more utopian than communism.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for libertarianism for individuals (and consenting individuals in the privacy of their own homes), but I am a firm believer that businesses need to be regulated and that government can — and should — act for the greater good in areas other than security.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 16:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I know you're a libertarian, but you must realize that it's an even more utopian than communism.
You may be right, as much as I hate being even mentioned in the same sentence as communists.
Quote:
Well, the Nazis declared war on us, so liberating france became a strategic goal.
I agree that is a pretty substantial factor to consider, but are we obligated to encourage, say, the Chinese people to obverthrow their student-squashing overlords?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 16:47 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
My feeling on liberation excursions is this (and it's been evolving over time and may be different in a few years): If we had a world political body (like the UN, for instance), and we, in conjunction with the rest of the world, then we could stop massacres in Africa, free countries from petty dictators and really push for reforms in countries like China.
Now, the UN is a corrupt piece of work, and I'd like to see it fixed, but that seems like a long way off.
Strains of utopianism abound, I'm aware …
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 18:12 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
If we had a world political body (like the UN, for instance), and we, in conjunction with the rest of the world, then we could stop massacres in Africa, free countries from petty dictators and really push for reforms in countries like China.
Don't worry, you'll get it eventually, or at least someone claiming they can pull it off.
The problem with the U.N. is the problem with all bureaucracies, they don't work. To fix the U.N, you'd have to fix all the lunkheads in it, which would amount to fixing most of the world, which is what we were expecting the U.N. to do to start with. It's a viscious cycle. After all, the U.N. was partially formed to address the ineffiencies and incompentencies and corruptions of the League of Nations. It wound up being more of the same.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:32 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Well, with regard to the UN- nothing is perfect, and all organizations will have both high and low points of effectiveness.
The UN's effectiveness is the most substantial argument I've ever heard against its existance. The problem is- if you remove that... well, even something is presumably more effective than nothing.
And the reason for that poor effectiveness is linked to the UN's accountability. How to get accountability? By direct representation through election.
Obviously that won't be happening, for plenty of good reasons, so we need to work on the UN by supporting it more and filling it with our most competant public servants. It can't be a FEMA style turkey farm with global reach. Awareness and ownership of the UN on America's behalf needs rejuvination. Once, we saw it as our baby and put it to good use. Since that has fallen by the wayside- it is what it is.
Of course, this also has its drawbacks. Unfortunately, this is where I get to the worst argument I've ever heard agains the UN- fear of a one world government.
It isn't that I haven't read 1984 (actually, 3 or 4 governments) or Revelation. Its just that if we remove the UN, then laid bare is the reality- we do have a one world government and it is the United States of America. The UN is just one of the ways we've pulled the strings since WWII. Another was Bretton Woods and the eventual free floating market exchange system under which we now operate.
We're #1, so we get to make the rules. Its the Microsoft model. Fair or not- that's how it works.
And when we take that responsibility seriously, and work to be good stewards of this lofty position- things go well. If we don't, then we get the things we've gotten in this decade. The front cover of the Economist for this week had a string tied to the trigger of a gun- with a blurb about America and the global economy. If we sink- so do they.
So, with all that in mind, here's what I'd suggest as the alternative to a surrender of soverignty on behalf of the world's nations to become part of a bigger bureaucracy:
Quote:
I think the best and most fair thing we can do is keep pushing free trade, push OUR companies for something akin to a universal minimum wage and start backing away from aggressive nation building. We've also got to sell the concept of global leadership to the American people as something they must take seriously.
The international system as it is- does "work" fine. We get cheap goods and oil- and we expect a certain amount of blowback for the disocount. Every so often, the toys are full of lead and terrorists attack our cities. There is a push and pull to everything. It sucks when it happens, but we forget all those times we got to work for under a dollar or made our kid happy on Christmas by giving him the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.
The reason we're talking about all this is because things have advanced again and we've found a way to frame some progress. This may not happen for some time, but there are others like us, having these conversations all over the world.
"Why can't we have it all?" they say. "Why can't the Americans have the things that make the global economy boom, and the Chinese have decent labor conditions and the Muslim countries have material justice that leads to advancement of their societies as well"?
The answer is- all those things can happen, and probably will. Right now, we're just rebounding from the shock of having some eventuall Yang come after many years of Yin.
Quote:
are we obligated to encourage, say, the Chinese people to obverthrow their student-squashing overlords?
Sort of yes, and thats what we did. When everything we bought started saying "Made in China" it led to enourmus economic growth, which is leading to a large degree of political growth. Now, it isn't Athens yet- but it has gotten better. You can't pack but so many people into a city, like Manchester in the 1850's, before people start to strike and demand rights. That is coming more all the time in China.
As for the Frogs, they might answer the Monday morning quarterbacking of a young JFK's cries of appeasement of Hitler- by saying "What ze hell? Yu could hiv bailed us oot earleier, like wee deed for yu duuring ze Americaan Revolution!"
And we'd say "Settle down Frenchy, we got around to it."
And we did, after we had a material interest in doing so- just like they helped us when THEY had a material interest in doing so.
Now, it would be nice if the world could evolve beyond that into some sort of nation-state altruism. It does break out that way occasionally and we'd better be gald it does, because such math is pretty cold and reptillian. But until that time, I advocate a sort of economic realism that ditches zero-sum views of the world.
In other words, yes we live in a place where you can't trust anyone, but sometimes you'll be pleasantly suprised. Always help out when you can, just don't expect anything in return.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
a FEMA style turkey farm with global reach.
Can I steal that phrase? I really like it.
I quote this guy a lot becausee, frankly, he's a lot smarter than me. Just throwing it out there.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 20:03 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
I think the best and most fair thing we can do is keep pushing free trade
I gotta say I disagree whole-heartedly. The cost of cheap goods is killing us (and I don't mean lead toys): We used a tariff system for 200 years and thrived. China could make a GI Joe for a dollar, but if it costs $2 to make in the US, China had to pay the difference.
It protected manufacturing in the US. It also pushed other countries to meet our standards.
Reaganomics and NAFTA dismantled that system in the name of free market, which helps big business.
Trickle down economics? More like getting pissed on by giant corporations.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 21:05 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
We really did wander a bit off topic, didnt we?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 21:13 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Ah, such is life. It still ain't about Iraq, at least …
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 06:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I agree there is something to your argument there Cap. I've been on that side of the debate and still vacation there occasionally. But I don't think that we're discussing a zero sum game here. In other words- there might be a battle between the "haves" and "have nots", but capitalism increases the size of the pie so fast, that even a "have not" has a better chance of getting a slice. He might have to steal it- but hey, so do the "haves".
I still think certain things require some autonomy. Obviously the most horrendous example of the market gone awry would be energy. We shouldn't be so dependent on others for that, or at least keep the market free and vote out politicians on the take from big oil (yes, prob all of them).
However, I can't deny the wealth creation or convenience of free trade. Even in China. I think that the growth of liberalism is tied to the owning of stuff- just like Locke identified. Of course, at some point, people start to wonder if the stuff is worth the bargain- like Marcuse identified.
But one way or another, I think in the long term everyone must be able to exploit their comparative advantage as best as possible. If that is a huge labor force- there ya go. If someone wants to alter their comparative advantage to make life easier- that is ultimately up to them as well, and there isn't much we can do to help in that case other than the peace corps or structural adjustment lending.
Quote:
It protected manufacturing in the US. It also pushed other countries to meet our standards.
Right, but standards improve. Even Nicholas Kristoff has come around to the idea that the sweatshops in southeast asia are better than the brothels. It is a hard thing to look at the standards of some of these other countries, but they are being offered a choice through free trade. Thats one option they didn't have before.
The poor people of the world could all go back and farm again but they don't. We tend to romanticize farming here in the US because it coincided with our rise to global dominance. But the fact of the matter is that living in a world of cheap plastic is way better than making everything oneself- or getting another American to do it.
The GIJoe in question might have been made by a ten year old in a crowded, smog choked city that dwarfs even NYC (5 Chinese cities bigger than NYC, if you can believe it) but that is still better than things have ever been in China- and the curve upwards is steep. If he wants to go live off the land as an adult like his ancestors did- China also has plenty of room for that sort of thing.
But like us, I bet he won't make that choice. I've seen land out west that is practically given away- hundreds of dollar per acre near highways. But nobody uses it. They all want to live in the cities to compete for desk jobs. Why? I'm not sure myself- as I have to be in for a pointless teleconference at 7am. On the way there, I can't even fathom how many products I'll use from a foreign country. But it is damn convenient. (And I'll smell better this way, and not have a hard time finding a girl in the middle of nowhere that doesn't mind a smelly farmer.)
We make these decisions everyday. We make the call. We've got the opportunity to choose.
Now, that is an extreme example- I know you weren't suggesting we all go live in straw huts or log cabins.
But even buying American is not really feasible at this point. Unemployment is low even with Bush running the economy. Some former steel mill workers are out of work- but plenty are cable guys now. We actually have fruit die on the vine when there aren't enough people to pick it. We pay people terrible wages under the table to do this- and they keep risking their lives to come here and do it. It MUST be better than what they left.
Now, I would agree that this requires employers to raise their wages on up the chain so CEOs don't claim the billions that they do for relatively little work. Clearly a universal minimum wage needs to be addressed at some point. I do believe that if we keep growing and the world becomes progressively more liberal as you say- this will happen. I hope I live to see it.
I also don't think that the US should let a company go overseas and run amok after we spent years nurturing it to fiscal adulthood. Haliburton is the most obvious offender, moving to Dubai about a month after the Democrats were elected. But how WILL we enforce this? We can't. We've got to invest in infrastructure and education. Not every business will want to move to Africa, just because the taxes are low and public officials are easy to buy.
And that leaves us far from Reaganomics, which I agree- were a sham. But I do believe that healthy corporations are a good thing- especially when they employ me. I appreciate both the people that shop with them, and those who refuse to do so. Both have a valid point of view, and both contribute to the market getting better.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 12:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
there might be a battle between the "haves" and "have nots", but capitalism increases the size of the pie so fast, that even a "have not" has a better chance of getting a slice
You do my heart good, Danny boy.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 01:29 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Without giving people a proper financial education(or heavens forbid them getting it themselves) the minimum wage will never ever ever make a have-not into a have.
As for immigrants coming here, I have heard that we are going to have to bring them in and get them 'in the program' to have any chance of saving Medicare and Social Security. On my own behalf, I won't miss these programs if they do go, but I was wondering what you all thought just the same.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 03:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
As for immigrants coming here, I have heard that we are going to have to bring them in and get them 'in the program' to have any chance of saving Medicare and Social Security.
Given the low birth rates of my generation and the generation behind me, I suspect that's probably true, especially since SS in it's current form is just a glorified Ponzi scheme enforced at the point of a gun. But since the good people at the AARP shafted my generation by using their political strong-arm tactics to kill any attempt at real SS reform, I expect to pay higher and higher SS benefits for the rest of my life, and receive a pittance in return.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 04:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
You didn't think the AARP would not look after their own interests?
The president's proposal at a privatized system was only one attempt/theory/possible solution.
There may be another way...another program that people who haven't paid into it are sucking it dry....welfare maybe? Seriously overhaul the welfare system, boot the abusers, grandfather the actual 'needy', shut it down, pay back everyone who paid in to SS with interest and shut it down as well.
Two lame birds with one stone.
Too progressive?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 17:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I have heard about a proposed idea,(but I haven't actually run the numbers on it) in which people under a certain age would have the option to sign themselves out of the SS system, signing away all future benefits in exchange for no more payroll deductions. Those over the age limit and those who stay in the system would have their benefits paid for the way they are now, with any shortages paid for by the governement selling off some of its excess assets. Of course, even then at some point you have to cut benefits for people as the generations get smaller and smaller. Plus that is way too radical an idea for anybody other than wingnuts like me to get behind it.
Quote:
You didn't think the AARP would not look after their own interests?
The conversion of a small percentage of the SS fund into private accounts would not have hurt their constituents at all. I have a lot of issues with that group.
Here's something cool, since we are on the subject.Another offering from the merry elves at Bureaucrash.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 17:39 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
By the way Preach, you can use the FEMA style turkey farm remark- but I think I got that from a textbook on FEMA.
Also, full disclosure- the reference went something like this:
"Because former President Reagan had turned FEMA into a turkey farm for political appointees, George H.W. Bush knew better than to use FEMA to help the recovery during Hurricane Andrew. Instead he mobilized the Department of Transportation and didn't bother getting FEMA involved."
Now that is totally paraphrasing- I really don't want to go looking for that reference in the basement all day, but I thought the origins of the turkey farm should be acknowledged.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 17:54 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
And I checked out the link you provided regarding the minimum wage.
This was a good point:
Quote:
StarKist Tuna, whose parent company is Del Monte, and Chicken of the Sea employ nearly 50 percent of the Samoan workforce. Samoan cannery workers earn about $3.50 an hour. I'll give you one guess what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to $7.25 an hour. Here's a hint: The average cannery wage in Thailand is 67 cents an hour, and in the Philippines, it's 66 cents. If you guessed that StarKist and Chicken of the Sea might move their operations to Thailand or the Philippines, go to the head of the class. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi agrees that mandating a higher wage would have an unemployment effect, but just in Samoa.
Right. But a universal minimum wage would at least make this fair if tied to global currency. That is why a federal minimum wage worked in the US for so long, until companies gained the supply chain capacity to move elsewhere. A global minimum wage would help our workers here too- all the way up the chain.
And why do we own Samoa?
But back to the point, I heard Bill Clinton saying on youtube yesterday- we need to build a global society where everybody counts. I take this to mean, if you do 12 hours of hard work, then that work should be judged by what it accomplished, not the country of your birth. The only way to enforce this is to reign in the companies that grew up here in the US, under the protection of our military, banking system, and carefully constructed consumer market. If we let them go out and run amok around the world, this does come back to haunt us in a multitude of ways.
I really think it is a possibility that at some point during this century, the US military is going to end up in a war with a private company. Things are gonna get weird, so we should start getting them to behave now. That doesn't mean we force them to stay, but we should force them to adhere to some standards overseas.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 20:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
hat is why a federal minimum wage worked in the US for so long,
"Worked" is a curious choice of words.
Anyway, my main issue with the existence of a minimum wage is that it is no ones business what I am willing to work for. Wages are as effected by the laws of supply and demand as anything else. If I am willing to do a job for less than the other guy, and the employer agrees to it, who is the state to get in the middle of a private business transcation? When I become an employee, I am selling my time, and since it is, after all, my time to sell, how would it be different than any other commodity I would sell? I put out a price for an hour of my time, the employer looks at what sort of value he would get for an hour of my time versus what what it would cost him and decides whether or not hiring me is a good business decision.
I know, I know, greedy capitalist robber barons would have everybody working in a coal mine for 9 cents a year without the hallowed minimum wage and the gummint watching out for us. If that's true, then why is anyone paid more than the minimum wage? Why aren't nuclear physicists making 5 bucks an hour? Becauase there is higher demand placed on their skills than a burger flipper. The other side to that is that some jobs are frankly too menial to justify the expense even paying someone minimum wage to do them. (I have a really great story about that if you want to hear it). But of course we're not allowed to pay less.
Another point, when the minimum wage goes up, the price of just about everything else soon follows so whatever short-term economic gains may be made by the recepeient are wiped out in higher cost of living, which is why we have to keep raising it.
The minimum wage is, at the end of the day, a tool that economically incompetent politicians can use to garner up votes from economically incompetent people. And thanks to our government schools, most of the population will stay that way.
And praise the Lord, we're still not talking about Iraq. We should really commend ourselves on our self-control.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 15:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
If I am willing to do a job for less than the other guy, and the employer agrees to it, who is the state to get in the middle of a private business transcation? When I become an employee, I am selling my time, and since it is, after all, my time to sell, how would it be different than any other commodity I would sell? I put out a price for an hour of my time, the employer looks at what sort of value he would get for an hour of my time versus what what it would cost him and decides whether or not hiring me is a good business decision.
Right, but here is where I often have to part ways with the libertarians. People exist in "time" in a more permanent way than they live in a building. When you're selling your time- that is all you've got. That's your existence. If there is a race to the bottom for wages regarding time, then some people have to just stop existing.
Or if they can- they just find a better way to exist outside of the system. Then we end up locking them up. Then the system is forced to pay all over again.
I realize that the minimum wage does need to keep being raised. I understand that it forces employers to spend more money on labor than they want and have less money for profit. Neither of these are necessarily bad things.
However, an organization does not succeed with the contribution only of the owner. Some consideration needs to be given to the workers as well. If someone puts in 60+ hours a week and is willing to work on their education as well- it isn't fair to keep them poor. This is America.
True freedom is not a negotiation between an individual, a horde of other workers and an employer in a race to the lowest wage. $3 an hour isn't freedom, its the kind of thing that forces a person into the black market instead.
Quote:
I know, I know, greedy capitalist robber barons would have everybody working in a coal mine for 9 cents a year without the hallowed minimum wage and the gummint watching out for us.
It has happened before. They had kids crawling into machinery to pry loose stuck widgets when things would break. The average life expectancy in Manchester during the height of the industrial revolution was 17. As we've seen recently- people are STILL ripping off coal miners for some of the most dangerous work on the planet. It can get ugly without proper standards.
Quote:
If that's true, then why is anyone paid more than the minimum wage? Why aren't nuclear physicists making 5 bucks an hour?
All sorts of reasons. Mostly, they're doing a job that few other people can do because they've had the training to do it. Not everyone has had access to that sort of education and I assure you- schooling is directly linked with the sort of free time that only money (usually a parent's money) can buy. Of course, that is what any of us would do for our kid- but plenty of people don't have the luxury of decent upbringing so we have to give them a start somewhere.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 15:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
People exist in "time" in a more permanent way than they live in a building. When you're selling your time- that is all you've got. That's your existence. If there is a race to the bottom for wages regarding time, then some people have to just stop existing.
I will address your other points in a minute, but I need you to explain what this means, if you don't mind.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 16:17 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
If there's not a minimum wage, business will collude and agree to pay people the least amount they can Creating minimum standards gives people at the bottom end a point to start from. Last I checked $7-8 a hour is still a pretty tough way to make a living.
I think minimum wages are more important than ever. We are losing manufacturing and light blue collar jobs hand over fist. However, service jobs are booming (though many of those are going to illegal immigrants), those jobs pay little, and would pay less if not for a minimum wage.
Problem with the letting-the-market-sort-it-out BS (and it is BS), is that the folks with the heftiest strings to pull in the market, will pull them to give themselves more profit. They collude, intimidate and resort to violence to keep workers under their collective thumbs.
Frankly, libertarianism in business is a nod to greed, because most business owners will always try to make more profits, be it through forcing labor costs down, having unsafe work environments, making inferior products, not disposing of waste in a safe manner, etc.
For instance, our current administration, which loves laissez faire capitalism, has overseen an alarming spike in mining deaths, because of not enforcing the laws and regulations.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg …
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 16:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Do either of you gentlemen (Danny and Captain) agree with my basic assertion that it is , after all, my time to sell?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 17:07 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Sure, but we as a society have deemed that everyone's time is worth no less than $5.75 an hour. It's part of being in a representative democracy.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 17:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Once again, if I was willing to work for less in an attempt to undercut the vast pool of unskilled labor out there, what business of it is the states to interfere in a private business transaction? Why don't we 'deem' that there is a low-dollar amount on other commodities that people sell? After all, part of the price of an item is the amount of time it took to acquire it or produce it. And labor is as much subject to the laws of supply and demand as anything else.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 17:26 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
Well, you should read some history on this, but it's because businesses took every opportunity to take advantage of workers. Cut-rate wages, brutal schedules, no health benefits, etc. Workers with no options or safety nets are at the mercy of business owners.
If you want to work something out, I'm sure you could find an employer to take you up on it.
|
| Posted: 01 Oct 2007 17:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Laying aside all the horrid stories about little kids and coal mines and all that , and leaving behind the Erin-Brokovich alternate reality where business is composed of rich white men in smoke filled rooms who are constantly looking to screw over the little guy, I suggest we look at this as a simple supply and demand situation.
I would never even insinuate that a person is only worth x amount an hour. A person is inherently valuable, in fact, priceless. The issue at hand is, how much is an hour of that person's labor worth. If you have no discernible skills, then the commodity on sale of an hour of your labor is worth very little , because the world is full of other people who also have no skills. High supply, low demand. You are as much at the mercy of the buyer as anyone else would be in trying to sell anything common.
But if your skill set involves the ability to pull a heart out of a living human being and put another heart in without them dying, then an hour of your labor is worth much much more, as you can demand as much on the open market. You are selling a commodity that has a very high demand with a very low supply.
Businesses are in the practice of getting labor for as cheap as they can, just like you and I will shop for a good deal to make the amount of money we have last longer. If you buy a cheap product, did you somehow take advantage of the seller? No, he could have demanded much more, but unless it was worth it to you, you wouldn't have paid it. The natural pull and tug of supply and demand makes sure than heart surgeons make more than ditch diggers. A business may wish to pay a heart surgeon ditch digger wages, but because of the upward push demand places on prices, they are unable to do it. And all the rich white men in smoke-filled rooms in the world can't change that.
The individual has a responsibility to develop his skills to a point in which an hour of his labor is worth as much as he can get out of it. And the business has an obligation to shop around to get the most value for the paycheck dollar they can.
The only situation in which businesses can really take advantage of workers is when they have a large pool of unskilled labor and a small amount of unskilled labor they need performed. Of course there have been abuses in the past (people abuse each other every chance they get, it's human nature), but why the state is anymore trustworthy in this than businesses are is a mystery to me. Those abuses for the most part were short-lived (in the big scheme of things) and the dynamics of the workforce continually change as specialization of skills affects the supply and demand equation.
On a personal note, I grew up planting pine trees and picking tobacco. It was hard, miserable work, and it make me decide to learn whatever I had to to not to have to do it for the rest of my life. There are people that I worked with that are still out there doing it, even though I now make in an hour what I used to make in a day (or close to it).
Quote:
If you want to work something out, I'm sure you could find an employer to take you up on it The employer runs the risk of having the state come in and punish him for trying to engage in a business transaction that would be perfectly legal with any other commodity.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
|
