Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Foxfyre]

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

You just don't get it. Why should you be able to force a man to not work? That's exactly the result of ANY minimum wage. Older Americans, the uneducated, young workers...many of whom are perfectly willing to work are prevent from doing so by your government meddling. Not everyone wanting to work has a family to support. Some just want to earn a few extra dollars. You're position ends up driving those willing to work away from a job and on the dole. Of course, I understand that once they're addicted to government handouts, they will vote for the re-distributionists but I find the whole idea disgusting. Shame on you.

More than 70% of those making minimum wage are adults. Why do you think someone's work is worth less because they don't have a family to support? Don't you think people should make what they "earn"?

You remind me of my dad, one of his worst times. I came home from school and mowed the lawn for the first time of the summer, using a push lawnmower. He came home and said if I trimmed it, he'd pay me $2.00. Mind you, this is when you used trimmers to trim the lawn. I did. One week later a local neighborhood boy came by with his power mower and my dad paid him $5.00 for mowing the lawn and I still had to trim it, but of course, he was a boy so he needs to make more.

Yes, when they do the work as agreed, people should be paid what they agreed to work for. But some work is simply worth more than other work is worth.

If I am looking for an auditor to work for me, I need somebody with good math and computer skills, strong personal integrity, and a lot of experience or know how in a lot of different things. But I will receive enough for the finished product to make a profit for myself plus pay somebody very well to do the audit. I am willing and able to pay very well to attract a quality employee.

If I am looking for somebody to pick up the apples that fell off the tree in the back yard, that person isn't going to need much in the way of skills and it is a service I don't have to have. I usually offer about $10.00. If the kid next door takes all day to pick up those apples he gets $10 which is poor wages but that was his choice. If he does it in 20 minutes, he still makes $10 which is a very good wage. Piece work generally works like that and is in no way based on minimum wage.

If the labor is more than the profit or benefit I expect to net for it, or costs me more than I can afford, the job won't be offered. And the worker demanding more than I am willing to pay winds up with nothing.

Put minimum waqe at a higher rate than the job is worth, and the job won't be offered.

 

[ShackledNation]

Not moral. After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery? Read Mises.

They will no more read Mises than they will read Rand or Rothbard.

These are people who get their news from Jon Stewart; even if they DID read economically sound literature, they wouldn't grasp it. The sad fact is the the American left is built on a foundation of poorly educated people with low IQ's.

People always think I'm just insulting the left, but I'm not.

The fact is that leftism is the manifestation of the inability to process information in a logical and rational manner, reaching a reasoned conclusion. Leftist emote rather than think, because thinking eludes them.

There was a study somewhere that compared emotion vs reason of different ideologies. Libertarians used reason at the highest levels, then conservatives, and then liberals, who where the most emotional. It all makes sense really. Women are more emotional in general (this is not a bad thing, but its true), and most a liberals, many are conservative, and a handful are libertarian.

 

[Againsheila]

You just don't get it. Why should you be able to force a man to not work? That's exactly the result of ANY minimum wage. Older Americans, the uneducated, young workers...many of whom are perfectly willing to work are prevent from doing so by your government meddling. Not everyone wanting to work has a family to support. Some just want to earn a few extra dollars. You're position ends up driving those willing to work away from a job and on the dole. Of course, I understand that once they're addicted to government handouts, they will vote for the re-distributionists but I find the whole idea disgusting. Shame on you.

More than 70% of those making minimum wage are adults. Why do you think someone's work is worth less because they don't have a family to support? Don't you think people should make what they "earn"?


You remind me of my dad, one of his worst times. I came home from school and mowed the lawn for the first time of the summer, using a push lawnmower. He came home and said if I trimmed it, he'd pay me $2.00. Mind you, this is when you used trimmers to trim the lawn. I did. One week later a local neighborhood boy came by with his power mower and my dad paid him $5.00 for mowing the lawn and I still had to trim it, but of course, he was a boy so he needs to make more.

We don't. However, the minimum wage was never meant to support a family (or even a single person) as a living wage. Before I started college I worked two full time jobs to pay for my tuition. Then when I had actually started college I still worked a full time job to help pay the bills. Both jobs sucked the big wazoo but I was looking for the payoff at the end.

So here's a question for you. Is it proper to pay someone who has worked hard for their education (whether it be in a college or trade school) the same as a person who hasn't done anything to improve themselves?


BTW your Dad was a jerk!

If they are doing the same job, you bet it's proper to pay them the same.

As for my dad, he had his faults, but he was a good man. He enlisted in the service and retired an officer, do you know how few people do that? After he retired, he went back to school. He had 3 careers, Air Force, Accountant, and college Professor. He was able to retire from all 3 of those careers. That's a self made man for you.

 

[Againsheila]

Not moral. After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery? Read Mises.

They will no more read Mises than they will read Rand or Rothbard.

These are people who get their news from Jon Stewart; even if they DID read economically sound literature, they wouldn't grasp it. The sad fact is the the American left is built on a foundation of poorly educated people with low IQ's.

People always think I'm just insulting the left, but I'm not.

The fact is that leftism is the manifestation of the inability to process information in a logical and rational manner, reaching a reasoned conclusion. Leftist emote rather than think, because thinking eludes them.

1) I'm not on the left, I'm a moderate...on other subjects, the liberals are calling me a neocon.

2) My IQ is 140 based on a test before I entered school, what's yours?

3) True capitalism doesn't allow unfettered immigrations to bring in low wage workers to compete with out own, doesn't provide $billions to the wealthiest in our society responsible for the debacle of our economy and does allow unions to ensure that the workers have a say.

It's funny how people only want capitalism when it benefits them. Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.

 

[Ame®icano]

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage

Well hell, why not raise it more than that? If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000? Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

Why do you think they deserve more?

 

[Againsheila]

Well hell, why not raise it more than that? If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000? Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

Why do you think they deserve more?

I asked you first!

 

[Ame®icano]

So the people working at McDonalds are do nothings, and the hedge fund managers are "making a living on their own?"

Nobody is forbidding people who work at McD's to manage hedge funds on their own.

Not to mention that McDonalds has been paying well above minimum wage in most places because they can't attract dependable staff otherwise.

Tim Horton in Alberta offering $12/hour and having hard time finding workers... And not just them, READ MORE.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

Why do you think they deserve more?

I asked you first!

Well, question was addressed to eflatminor, so you asked him first.

I asked you why do you think they deserve more... whatever more is?

 

[Modbert]

We sure do here in Louisiana... the Feds rape us for billions and then give it to fuckwad blue states so they can make their transfer payments.

Looks like to me it's the opposite:

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

$1.78 received for every $1 paid in taxes to the federal government.

 

[Modbert]

Food Stamps is a great example of a failed program.

Moody's would disagree, but hey, what do they know huh?

 

[ShackledNation]

Why do you think they deserve more?

I asked you first!

Well, question was addressed to eflatminor, so you asked him first.

I asked you why do you think they deserve more... whatever more is?

Nobody deserves more or less than any point in time. They deserve what their service is worth to the employer. If they do not like what the employer is willing to pay, they look somewhere else. If the employer cannot find any workers, he will have to raise his price. And that is what McDonald's is doing. Nobody is entitled to anything. You work for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is forbidding people who work at McD's to manage hedge funds on their own.

Not to mention that McDonalds has been paying well above minimum wage in most places because they can't attract dependable staff otherwise.

Tim Horton in Alberta offering $12/hour and having hard time finding workers... And not just them, READ MORE.

Well Canada doesn't have a fearless leader who thinks anybody or any nation can spend itself rich. All the countries who pulled in their horns and went on austerity programs are pulling out of the recession or recovering. Those who did not: Spain, Italy, Greece--are floundering just as we are. The difference is there isn't anybody to bail us out but us and our government seems determined to keep policies in place to keep us from doing that.

McDonalds and all companies like them prosper by offering a product people like to eat or drink at a price that 'feels' affordable. They do that by name familiarity and keeping their costs to obtain, prepare, and serve their products as low as possible and still show a good profit. Those costs include the labor. If they were required to pay a 'living wage' to all their employees, they would likely soon go out of business and there would be no wages of any amount for anybody.

People who work at McDonalds are mostly kids and part timer adults who want to earn some spending money, are saving up for a major purchase, or are supplementing other income. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Wealth doesn't make a person more or less moral.

 

[Modbert]

Well Canada doesn't have a fearless leader who thinks anybody or any nation can spend itself rich. All the countries who pulled in their horns and went on austerity programs are pulling out of the recession or recovering. Those who did not: Spain, Italy, Greece--are floundering just as we are. The difference is there isn't anybody to bail us out but us and our government seems determined to keep policies in place to keep us from doing that.

It's funny you mention Canada.

Canada

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s C$40 billion ($32.6 billion) plan to spark economic growth may be enough for opposition lawmakers to support his budget, keeping the minority Conservative government in power.

Harper suspended Parliament last month to keep rival parties from toppling him after lawmakers rejected a plan they said had too little stimulus. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, whose party holds the balance of power in Parliament, will say today whether he’ll back the budget, which includes C$84.9 billion in deficits over five years.

Harper’s stimulus will boost the nation’s gross domestic product by 1.4 percentage points by the end of 2010, according to the budget document. The move represents the second-largest stimulus package as a share of output among Group of Seven countries, after the U.S., according to the budget.

Bachmann: Canada Did 'No Stimulus' (Oh Really?) | TPMDC

If we make further adjustments, using IMF data for each country from the year 2008 for purchasing-power parity, per-capita GDP, and the much larger population of the United States, this would work out as very roughly equal to a stimulus of over US$360 billion if it were done here.

That stimulus is still less than half of the $787 billion stimulus under Obama -- but it's a whole lot more than no stimulus at all. And it should be noted, Canada did not have a need for as extensive a package of stimulus spending.

Furthermore:

In fact, the recession did not hit Canada anywhere near as severely as the U.S. -- after all, the economic collapse in many ways started here, and other countries were caught up in the financial hangover. In light of that, it must also be noted that one reason for Canada's resilience was having years of strict banking regulations, which fostered a more stable financial system. As the Economist reported in 2010:

Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, attributes Canada's strong performance to its "boring" financial system. Prodded by tight regulation, the banks were much more conservative in their lending than their American counterparts. Those that did dabble in subprime loans were able to withdraw quickly. This prudence kept a lid on house prices while those in America were soaring, but it paid off when the bust hit.

Reality doesn't quite go with your talking points.

 

[hippie2049]

1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.

2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

3. U.S. tax policy seems to rest on the idea of the social contract.The social contract basically means that because we are social creatures, who will all reap certain benefits from certain government services, taxation to provide these services is necessary and just.

Taxation is the cost of living and benefiting from society. Those who are the most successful in society benefit the most by living in society and ought to bear the highest burden.

The above paragraph is also why libertarianism fails.

 

[bripat9643]

1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.

2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

3. U.S. tax policy seems to rest on the idea of the social contract.The social contract basically means that because we are social creatures, who will all reap certain benefits from certain government services, taxation to provide these services is necessary and just.

Taxation is the cost of living and benefiting from society. Those who are the most successful in society benefit the most by living in society and ought to bear the highest burden.

The above paragraph is also why libertarianism fails.

Of course, your post is total bullshit. Libertarianism doesn't fail. It has never been tried. However, government fails at almost everything it tries.

 

[eflatminor]

Those who are the most successful in society benefit the most by living in society.

Can you explain, using logic and reason please, why you believe that statement is true?

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) I'm not on the left, I'm a moderate...

Do you consider yourself more or less moderate than Mao Tse Tung?

2) My IQ is 140 based on a test before I entered school, what's yours?

26,319,407,128

(Hey, it's the interwebz!)

3) True capitalism doesn't allow unfettered immigrations to bring in low wage workers to compete with out own,

Capitalism is an economic system. Immigration is unrelated.

doesn't provide $billions to the wealthiest in our society responsible for the debacle of our economy

Have you ever had an introductory economics course? You have odd delusions as to how the market works and what mechanisms are at play.

and does allow unions to ensure that the workers have a say.

Unions, like corporations, are inclined towards trusts. Trusts are damaging to the market. One of the few legitimate roles of the state is to constrain coercive elements. Coercive trusts, such as the AFL/CIO must be constrained in a free country. Unions that are within a company are not objectionable, no more than corporations which operate as a company.

It's funny how people only want capitalism when it benefits them.

It's funny that you have no grasp whatsoever of economics, not capitalism.

Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.

Yes, it would - and we should have. Bailing them out was a Keynesian, not Capitalist, effort.

 

[eflatminor]

Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.

Yes, it would - and we should have. Bailing them out was a Keynesian, not Capitalist, effort.

Thank you! What he said

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you explain, using logic and reason please, why you believe that statement is true?

Ummm, someone who has 40+ years of heavy LSD use, probably isn't going to provide a lot of logic and reason.

I'm just sayin....