US Politics Mega-thread - Page 109

On February 17 2013 14:09 Dagan159 wrote:
According to Marx, it is nearly impossible for a hard working, driven person to ascend to the bourgeois, and that simply isnt true.

On February 17 2013 14:37 Broly wrote:
@Jonny Mother Earth can't be accounted for in Excel. We can draw boundaries and allocate resources however we see fit, but there is no final solution.

Some chose to be unemployed, hermits, reclusive people in Alaska and other places. That is there decision, money isn't the answer for everyone. A few find it quite...trivial. In the end it is just currency to exchange goods and services.

On February 17 2013 14:44 aksfjh wrote:
Just want to repost this since it was the post that somehow derailed everything to the full philosophic discussion:

Raising minimum wage

Here's a brief read on modern minimum wage impact findings. Looks promising for advocates.

On February 17 2013 14:44 aksfjh wrote:
Just want to repost this since it was the post that somehow derailed everything to the full philosophic discussion:

Raising minimum wage

Here's a brief read on modern minimum wage impact findings. Looks promising for advocates.

On February 17 2013 14:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Then my excel spreadsheets will be forever wrong...

And by extension all for profit and not for profit institutions will, at best, be groping in the dark for the right answers.

On February 17 2013 14:51 sam!zdat wrote:


citation

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association.

On February 17 2013 14:56 Dagan159 wrote:


This article only looks at employment rates. If you increase McDonalds cant hire less employees, they are not running a charity they dont hire more workers than they absolutely need. They cant fire people that are a necessity to running their company. However, it may mean that they will not open a store in a town that desires it.

Just looking at employment rates is a very narrow vision of what raising the minimum wage does.

On February 17 2013 15:23 sam!zdat wrote:
Buddy, do you wanna just trust that I know a lot more about Marx than you do and take my word that what you are saying has nothing to do with Marx and is not a problem for Marxism? That would save us all a lot of trouble. Rags to riches stories are sort of a basic commonly accepted facet of capitalist ideology. Not to mention, I grew up a few blocks from Mark Cuban's house, so I'm well aware of his existence.

On February 17 2013 15:45 Dagan159 wrote:


Im sure you know more about marxism. Now please explain to me how someone could under wage-labor attain enough capital to ascend to the bourgeois?

On February 17 2013 15:45 Dagan159 wrote:
If you are a true marxist (and I have my suspicions that you are)

On February 17 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote:
it's just crazy enough to be a worthwhile suggestion

On February 17 2013 15:39 Broly wrote:
What you have described Dagan is utilitarianism. Very similar to John Stuart Mill's approach as a matter fact. You believe I am arguing for a position like socialism or communism. This is not my intent. Utopia is no place. This idea is possible. The only variable is choices. Choices by fully sentient beings.

Now to the questions you have asked me:
If we're all born equally human, why is it that some of us get to reap the benefits of a comfortable living and some can only dream of the chance?
We aren't born in the same social class. Some of us are given more opportunities than others. This isn't one person's fault. Our world plays host to many different cultures and societies. Each one has gotten to where they are under different circumstances. It's ubiquitous however, that the same conditions play out. The have and the have not's. Some have attained it through tremendous sacrifice, while others have simply inherited the fruits of others.

I never said we were born equally, we can be equal through our cognitive outlook on life. Our approach to life if you will.

I agree with your sentiment about the rich to an extent. They provide numerous opportunities, but frankly they can do more. They shouldn't need incentive to provide opportunities. This pertains to the big whales, those with exuberant amounts of money and merely need the will or the benevolence to open doors for others.

Why would you disregard adeptness? Because some of us are more adept at particular skills then others.i.e. we all can't perform the same jobs at the same standard (I dont micro as well as MKP or MVP). Each person has a different set of skills. Gates may in fact create a product which is worth its weight in gold to untold amounts of people, but that shouldn;t make him anymore significant than anyone else. He may be in fact play a vital role in society but he shouldn't be better than anyone else. Why? Because even the hobos or Joe could perform some task, some action which in itself could be worth to society. Every action can be worthwhile, it is all dependent upon the individual.


Why should you or anyone else care?
Because there may come a day when that individual or any individual for that matter could perform an action which is beneficial to society, perhaps even for yourself. Much like pay it forward, without the hedonistic treadmill.