|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Most of the business owners I know don't own their business to "get rich". They are well off, firmly upper middle class, but they are not there to squeeze every ounce of profit from every interaction. Profit is seen as a way to sock money away for a lean year or two. But these are small business owners(as defined by our goverment, companies with fewer that 400 employees). Once you get into massive, publicly traded companies, that is when the term "profit" takes on a different meaning and the share holders are only interested in the short term.
|
On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Non-profit organizations?
Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text.
You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) then I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite.
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-race-schools.html
related to the discussion on colourblindness a few pages ago, here is how Trump thinks about it.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, officials said.
The reversal would restore the policy set during President George W. Bush’s administration, when officials told schools that it “strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods” for admitting students to college or assigning them to elementary and secondary schools.
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Trump knocks Harley-Davidson again, says administration working to bring other motorcycle companies to the US
President Donald Trump criticizes Harley-Davidson on social media, saying his administration is talking to other motorcycle companies.
“Now that Harley-Davidson is moving part of its operation out of the U.S., my Administration is working with other Motor Cycle companies who want to move into the U.S. Harley customers are not happy with their move - sales are down 7% in 2017. The U.S. is where the Action is!,” Trump says in a tweet. www.cnbc.comI can't help but read stories like this a think 'fascist' rather than 'capitalist'.
Just think about the people working at this company, who are just trying to make a living but now have been labeled as unpatriotic by the President. Over things that are totally beyond their control and were created by actions of the President. I am not a huge fan of the FBI, NSA and CIA, but I am thankful they are independent enough that they won't be used to attack the "enemies" of the president.
On July 04 2018 01:44 Grumbels wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-race-schools.htmlrelated to the discussion on colourblindness a few pages ago, here is how Trump thinks about it. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, officials said.
The reversal would restore the policy set during President George W. Bush’s administration, when officials told schools that it “strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods” for admitting students to college or assigning them to elementary and secondary schools.
Ah, the Bush Era of education, where they created program designed to defund under preforming schools that just happened to mostly be in poor minority communities. A federal system designed to punish communities for being poor and having struggling schools due to poverity. These are the people we should look to for guidance.
This while there is a major fight in NYC over desegregating their schools, which have become almost comically monochromatic. The 8 top level high schools in the city have a black or Latino 12%, even though the city 67% black or Latino. And the city of Boston is more segregated than it was in the 1980s. And segregation leads to only feeds into racism.
|
On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks.
If people are spending enough to pay the wage, then it doesn't matter whether the law requires it or not. I can't speak to Canadian laws but I'm all for getting rid of tip wages altogether.
Minimum wage (in the US) was created specifically because of the belief that no business should exist if it can't pay people a living wage and businesses were regularly trying to exist while paying their workers a wage they couldn't live on.
We shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Businesses where the employees don't make a living wage shouldn't exist. They shouldn't have to be compelled to pay their employees fairly by law. I don't think minimum wage is the best possible solution, I've said that at least 4 times now, but I also don't lament businesses closing if they can't pay it and neither does it's creator.
It doesn't matter what the $ amount is. It's always going to be relative. The point is that people shouldn't be working to live in poverty.
If you're arguing in favor of people working for less than the current minimum wage I completely disagree.
|
On July 04 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Most of the business owners I know don't own their business to "get rich". They are well off, firmly upper middle class, but they are not there to squeeze every ounce of profit from every interaction. Profit is seen as a way to sock money away for a lean year or two. But these are small business owners(as defined by our goverment, companies with fewer that 400 employees). Once you get into massive, publicly traded companies, that is when the term "profit" takes on a different meaning and the share holders are only interested in the short term.
It may feel different with a big business, but it's the same thing. People are still people.
I know that calling publicly traded companies 'short term focuses' is fashionable, but it really isn't true. If investors were only concerned about the short term, companies like Amazon and Tesla would not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 02:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Most of the business owners I know don't own their business to "get rich". They are well off, firmly upper middle class, but they are not there to squeeze every ounce of profit from every interaction. Profit is seen as a way to sock money away for a lean year or two. But these are small business owners(as defined by our goverment, companies with fewer that 400 employees). Once you get into massive, publicly traded companies, that is when the term "profit" takes on a different meaning and the share holders are only interested in the short term. It may feel different with a big business, but it's the same thing. People are still people. I know that calling publicly traded companies 'short term focuses' is fashionable, but it really isn't true. If investors were only concerned about the short term, companies like Amazon and Tesla would not exist.
Amazon and Tesla are extremely young companies when you compare them to something like Wells Fargo or even a retail store like Macy's.
And I've done work for banks for a good chunk of my professional life. So I'm not saying it because its fashionable, I am saying it because it is my professional observation. Their decision making process exists purely on the short term. There is a saying in they have "I won't be here, you won't be here" since most of the employs move around between banks/firms on 2-4 year cycle. Few people at these firms plan 15-30 years into the future. And because there is so little accountability, the biggest risk they are concerned with is something blowing up in their face within a year.
Edit: Trump's administration has gone off the deep end.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/02/news/companies/auto-tariffs/index.html
The Commerce Department is considering tariffs on cars assembled at foreign plants and on foreign-made auto parts. Every car assembled in the United States contains a significant percentage of foreign parts, according to government data.
"There are no purely American vehicles," said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst at AutoTrader. "These are global automakers who use global sources for all types of parts."
Automakers are already warning that tariffs would raise their costs, in some cases by thousands of dollars per car. General Motors said last week that it could be forced to cut jobs.
Nice, cars were already super expensive to begin with. But now there will be a tariff on any car made outside of the US, which is literally all sold cars in the US. Man, we dodged the bullet by buying my wife a new car earlier this year. This would have fucked us.
|
On July 04 2018 02:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It appears you closed the circle (I think?).
Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. If people are spending enough to pay the wage, then it doesn't matter whether the law requires it or not. I can't speak to Canadian laws but I'm all for getting rid of tip wages altogether. Minimum wage (in the US) was created specifically because of the belief that no business should exist if it can't pay people a living wage and businesses were regularly trying to exist while paying their workers a wage they couldn't live on. We shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Businesses where the employees don't make a living wage shouldn't exist. They shouldn't have to be compelled to pay their employees fairly by law. I don't think minimum wage is the best possible solution, I've said that at least 4 times now, but I also don't lament businesses closing if they can't pay it and neither does it's creator. It doesn't matter what the $ amount is. It's always going to be relative. The point is that people shouldn't be working to live in poverty. If you're arguing in favor of people working for less than the current minimum wage I completely disagree. I'm not and never said I was, you take some impressive leaps. I do disagree with you on tipping. And I do lament businesses closing for most reasons including a raise in minimum wage, which likely is not any more a living wage then it was before.
Well you didn't think the minimum wage should be increased, but it was and shut down businesses you're sad to have lost, but the people shouldn't have kept working there for below the current minimum wage. So I don't really know what you expect.
A minimum wage intended to give people a living wage isn't perfect but it's better than what came before it and of the possibilities to replace it a federal jobs guarantee preferably in combination with a UBI and universal social programs seems best.
I don't really see any other way forward on assuring that working people aren't living in relative poverty and ideally that workers around the world cease living in absolute poverty. It's strictly a matter of distribution as it is. There's more than enough wealth in the world to ensure a basic level of humanity for everyone (food, clean water, shelter) we just choose a distribution that requires it.
|
|
|
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional.
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional.
Having grown up in a poor, rural white town, it was mostly the lack of well paying jobs in the area. And in almost 40 years, the town has gotten poorer, the same level of whiteness and there are still no jobs. So the problem is institutional, but not something the community can control. They can’t make something out of nothing.
|
On July 04 2018 02:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 02:09 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. If people are spending enough to pay the wage, then it doesn't matter whether the law requires it or not. I can't speak to Canadian laws but I'm all for getting rid of tip wages altogether. Minimum wage (in the US) was created specifically because of the belief that no business should exist if it can't pay people a living wage and businesses were regularly trying to exist while paying their workers a wage they couldn't live on. We shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Businesses where the employees don't make a living wage shouldn't exist. They shouldn't have to be compelled to pay their employees fairly by law. I don't think minimum wage is the best possible solution, I've said that at least 4 times now, but I also don't lament businesses closing if they can't pay it and neither does it's creator. It doesn't matter what the $ amount is. It's always going to be relative. The point is that people shouldn't be working to live in poverty. If you're arguing in favor of people working for less than the current minimum wage I completely disagree. I'm not and never said I was, you take some impressive leaps. I do disagree with you on tipping. And I do lament businesses closing for most reasons including a raise in minimum wage, which likely is not any more a living wage then it was before. Well you didn't think the minimum wage should be increased, but it was and shut down businesses you're sad to have lost, but the people shouldn't have kept working there for below the current minimum wage. So I don't really know what you expect. A minimum wage intended to give people a living wage isn't perfect but it's better than what came before it and of the possibilities to replace it a federal jobs guarantee preferably in combination with a UBI and universal social programs seems best. I don't really see any other way forward on assuring that working people aren't living in relative poverty and ideally that workers around the world cease living in absolute poverty. It's strictly a matter of distribution as it is. There's more than enough wealth in the world to ensure a basic level of humanity for everyone (food, clean water, shelter) we just choose a distribution that requires it. Your making a lot of assumptions and I'm not sure how with little to no information about COL here and the demographics of who holds the minimum wage jobs. You seem very ill informed to make these sweeping generalizations. How do you know that the before was not a living wage and that this is? I mean I completely agree wealth is distributed poorly and that needs to be fixed, but minimum wage is not doing it. It was a great first step, but now many years later instead of simply upping it we need to improve on it. I believe that raising the minimum wage did little to effect the issue. That is why I asked originally about other options and you went on a tangent attacking the summary of information I provided as back ground for the question. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up and adding stuff I thought a few posts ago we came to the conclusion that we basically agree on what I originally said, it was misunderstanding that cause the issue and that you are unwilling to answer my questions.
Did I stumble into the Canadian politics thread?
On July 04 2018 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional.
Agreed. The cultural and institutional consequences of capitalism and the concentration of wealth and the community that perpetuates it is at the root of poverty. Simply throwing money at impoverished people doesn't work because the institution and the culture of capitalism is designed to concentrate it back to the top.
In order to alleviate poverty we must attack the system which concentrates the wealth away from impoverished people in the first place.
|
On July 04 2018 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 02:09 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there.
Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system?
I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you.
My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. If people are spending enough to pay the wage, then it doesn't matter whether the law requires it or not. I can't speak to Canadian laws but I'm all for getting rid of tip wages altogether. Minimum wage (in the US) was created specifically because of the belief that no business should exist if it can't pay people a living wage and businesses were regularly trying to exist while paying their workers a wage they couldn't live on. We shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Businesses where the employees don't make a living wage shouldn't exist. They shouldn't have to be compelled to pay their employees fairly by law. I don't think minimum wage is the best possible solution, I've said that at least 4 times now, but I also don't lament businesses closing if they can't pay it and neither does it's creator. It doesn't matter what the $ amount is. It's always going to be relative. The point is that people shouldn't be working to live in poverty. If you're arguing in favor of people working for less than the current minimum wage I completely disagree. I'm not and never said I was, you take some impressive leaps. I do disagree with you on tipping. And I do lament businesses closing for most reasons including a raise in minimum wage, which likely is not any more a living wage then it was before. Well you didn't think the minimum wage should be increased, but it was and shut down businesses you're sad to have lost, but the people shouldn't have kept working there for below the current minimum wage. So I don't really know what you expect. A minimum wage intended to give people a living wage isn't perfect but it's better than what came before it and of the possibilities to replace it a federal jobs guarantee preferably in combination with a UBI and universal social programs seems best. I don't really see any other way forward on assuring that working people aren't living in relative poverty and ideally that workers around the world cease living in absolute poverty. It's strictly a matter of distribution as it is. There's more than enough wealth in the world to ensure a basic level of humanity for everyone (food, clean water, shelter) we just choose a distribution that requires it. Your making a lot of assumptions and I'm not sure how with little to no information about COL here and the demographics of who holds the minimum wage jobs. You seem very ill informed to make these sweeping generalizations. How do you know that the before was not a living wage and that this is? I mean I completely agree wealth is distributed poorly and that needs to be fixed, but minimum wage is not doing it. It was a great first step, but now many years later instead of simply upping it we need to improve on it. I believe that raising the minimum wage did little to effect the issue. That is why I asked originally about other options and you went on a tangent attacking the summary of information I provided as back ground for the question. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up and adding stuff I thought a few posts ago we came to the conclusion that we basically agree on what I originally said, it was misunderstanding that cause the issue and that you are unwilling to answer my questions. Did I stumble into the Canadian politics thread? Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional. Agreed the cultural and institutional consequences of capitalism and the concentration of wealth and the community that perpetuates it is at the root of poverty. Simply throwing money at impoverished people doesn't work because the institution and the culture of capitalism is designed to concentrate it back to the top. In order to alleviate poverty we must attack the system which concentrates the wealth away from impoverished people in the first place.
the fuck his post have to do with canada?
|
On July 04 2018 02:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 02:09 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever.
I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on.
If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position.
It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. If people are spending enough to pay the wage, then it doesn't matter whether the law requires it or not. I can't speak to Canadian laws but I'm all for getting rid of tip wages altogether. Minimum wage (in the US) was created specifically because of the belief that no business should exist if it can't pay people a living wage and businesses were regularly trying to exist while paying their workers a wage they couldn't live on. We shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Businesses where the employees don't make a living wage shouldn't exist. They shouldn't have to be compelled to pay their employees fairly by law. I don't think minimum wage is the best possible solution, I've said that at least 4 times now, but I also don't lament businesses closing if they can't pay it and neither does it's creator. It doesn't matter what the $ amount is. It's always going to be relative. The point is that people shouldn't be working to live in poverty. If you're arguing in favor of people working for less than the current minimum wage I completely disagree. I'm not and never said I was, you take some impressive leaps. I do disagree with you on tipping. And I do lament businesses closing for most reasons including a raise in minimum wage, which likely is not any more a living wage then it was before. Well you didn't think the minimum wage should be increased, but it was and shut down businesses you're sad to have lost, but the people shouldn't have kept working there for below the current minimum wage. So I don't really know what you expect. A minimum wage intended to give people a living wage isn't perfect but it's better than what came before it and of the possibilities to replace it a federal jobs guarantee preferably in combination with a UBI and universal social programs seems best. I don't really see any other way forward on assuring that working people aren't living in relative poverty and ideally that workers around the world cease living in absolute poverty. It's strictly a matter of distribution as it is. There's more than enough wealth in the world to ensure a basic level of humanity for everyone (food, clean water, shelter) we just choose a distribution that requires it. Your making a lot of assumptions and I'm not sure how with little to no information about COL here and the demographics of who holds the minimum wage jobs. You seem very ill informed to make these sweeping generalizations. How do you know that the before was not a living wage and that this is? I mean I completely agree wealth is distributed poorly and that needs to be fixed, but minimum wage is not doing it. It was a great first step, but now many years later instead of simply upping it we need to improve on it. I believe that raising the minimum wage did little to effect the issue. That is why I asked originally about other options and you went on a tangent attacking the summary of information I provided as back ground for the question. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up and adding stuff I thought a few posts ago we came to the conclusion that we basically agree on what I originally said, it was misunderstanding that cause the issue and that you are unwilling to answer my questions. Did I stumble into the Canadian politics thread? On July 04 2018 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional. Agreed the cultural and institutional consequences of capitalism and the concentration of wealth and the community that perpetuates it is at the root of poverty. Simply throwing money at impoverished people doesn't work because the institution and the culture of capitalism is designed to concentrate it back to the top. In order to alleviate poverty we must attack the system which concentrates the wealth away from impoverished people in the first place. the fuck his post have to do with canada?
Pretty sure he's talking about Canada when he says "here".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
