Aetherous

Who says that lightning, thunder, rain, and storms are bad energy for people? Of course it's dangerous to get struck...but...

Anyone read this yet?

If the business owner has a personal income from that profit which they can live on, they're also getting 100%. I question whether it correctly allocates. It's not a super-intelligent being. I also question whether people pay what they believe things are worth, or whether they pay what they can get away with paying. I also question whether beliefs about worth reflect the reality of true worth...for instance, we all depend on farmers. Their work is worth a lot to us...but their pay isn't so great, is it? Basically...lots of flaws in free market philosophy, in my view. Oh of course the market is not an ideology. But your view of it is.

Fair enough...I would also agree that if the free market eventually harmed no one, or was the least harmful option, then there would be no problem with it. From the links you gave in the other thread, what I saw was that there's actually the opposite of a short term bump...they were saying there's greater unemployment due to job losses in the short term. Didn't see any proof that individuals or society are worse off because of minimum wage in the long run.

Well, that's only if your profits are so bad that the business is barely making it. But yes, something must give. It isn't necessarily the following list, much of which would likely hurt the business unless done in smart ways: Of course. If the free market is so good no matter what it does to people, then this is acceptable, right?

In some businesses, it's what the laborer is worth as decided upon by demand for the product or service. When business is good, the employee can be paid more. In other businesses, it's what they can get away with paying the laborer. Because there is competition for how low one can pay laborers without losing the necessary labor to operate...increasing the profits of the business is the smart choice for that business, rather than catering to the hourly worker's lifestyle...therefore most unskilled jobs pay a similar amount: close to minimum wage. So for that unskilled worker, they look at jobs available to them, and none are really different from that rate...that's why they accept the job. If there was a better option, they'd take it...how is that fact lost on the Libertarian? Just like the ideal you have, where businesses would compete for good employees by paying more than the other companies...there is also the reality, where businesses compete for how little they have to spend on labor so as to increase profits. There are some of the real costs of running a business, of course. McDonalds workers aren't paid what they are due to these costs being too high, as would happen in a small business run with integrity...but they contribute to the decision.

My conscience tells me to ensure that wages are not exploitative of others and destructive to society, regardless of whether it's my business or Karl's.

No...it's what McDonalds corporation decides to pay them. Regardless of your philosophy of what the market is, this is true.

So a 10 year dissolution of the minimum wage law is still too sudden? I don't like misinterpreting people...but you have argued against having the minimum wage...

Chipotle is doing alright! (Actually, scratch that...I thought they paid a living wage to their employees, but apparently not.)

Perhaps you're thinking too highly of your position here. For instance, lets say you got your way and the minimum wage laws are gone tomorrow. Or even with a slow implementation, and 10 years from now they're gone. Do you think that's using force as lightly as possible? Look at the consequences for individuals which would occur over that idealism...that is not making the world a better place! In a society where inflation is constantly rising, you want to make wages even lower than they currently are, which is poverty level. I'd say that light touch would be way too heavy handed and forceful. Maybe you believe that businesses will have competitive wages in order to gain the employees they need...but what if it's not true, and it ends up being similar to how it is now: where the bottom of the barrel worker is forced into labor that is underpaid for what it is in order to survive, because there aren't other options? And yet, the wages are even lower than they are now, in a market where inflation and income inequality are even higher. When you encourage things which harm the world, that's not virtuous. When you want to allow true bullies to roam the playground without adult supervision, and call the ones who try to stand up for their friends and who tell the adult supervisors about bad things happening, "bullies"...or even call those supervisors bullies when they punish wrongdoers...something is wrong with the perspective. But anyway...I suspect the disagreement will continue ad nauseam. I guess the one thing we can take away from this...we both think we have good intentions. It's just a matter of speculating whose intentions would have good effects if implemented...and in speculation is a whole lot of untruth.

Imagine if people were actually paid for what the market thinks their labor is worth, rather than what the company decides their labor is worth. I bet McDonalds employees would be earning more than the requested $15 an hour, judging by the amount of traffic that goes through one of those restaurants in a day.

I'm not a religious follower of the DDJ. The only area where it comes close to cognitive dissonance for me is in a spiritual teaching that says to basically mind one's own business, and not be meddlesome. Focus on what you can do as an individual, rather than complaining about the negative actions of others...is the teaching. I like to think of things in a schoolyard metaphor...there is a bully who tends to pick on a weak kid. We as individuals have a choice to either be passive about it, and let nature take its course, or to stand up for the kid, or to supersede nature. Despite the teaching of not being meddlesome, I personally believe in standing up for those who need help. I consider it virtuous and spiritual to do so, and think that misinterpreting the teaching so as to be passive in the midst of wrongdoing against others is the opposite of virtue. As for the DDJ, which I'm not bound by... It hinges upon the idea that all people are of good character. While it's true that everyone at their core is good...everyone has Buddha nature...it certainly isn't true that everyone does good things. Not everyone manifests their true buddha nature. As in the example I like to use...bullies appear. They are a reality. People who consider themselves alone, and not others...that's a real thing, and actually applies to most everyone we encounter. Those people are NOT of good character, and can't be left to care for others, because they tend to exploit others. I don't need to list examples of this happening in business...we know that it happens.

Fair enough. I would say the opposite. For instance, I don't know what company you work for, but you said that some employees don't receive benefits and some are hourly. What is the lowest paid worker making per hour...is it considered a living wage, or is it a poverty level wage? Considering that it's the latter...does that poverty level worker not receive any benefits, which could help them? How many times greater is the salary of the CEO as compared to the lowest paid worker there? Does the CEO or other high level workers get any kind of bonus, and how does that compare to the bonuses given to the lowest paid workers? With a multi-million dollar operating budget, how is it not possible to adjust funds so that those bottom employees are paid reasonably? Is it true if you say that it's literally impossible, or is it just a challenge to accomplish? If living wage became a federal law, could you pull it off? I'm not saying you're one of the bad guys, by any means. I don't know your company at all. But if a company is capable of paying their employees reasonably, if they are capable of having a product or service at a reasonable cost to the consumer, and they choose not to for the sake of increasing profits or the salaries of the higher ups, then I do view them as guilty of ruining the economy and individual's lives.

Well, for your information, I'm telling you that you did not at all. For instance, you didn't pick up on "in general" in the sentence you just quoted from me...and from that came an enormous misunderstanding of thinking that literally anyone who operates a business is guilty of ruining the economy, which led to a post that was a waste of everyone's time, but especially your own. I could also go line by line through your outburst post, detailing the ways in which it has nothing to do with my position...but why waste even more time? It's enough for me to say that it has nothing to do with what I think, and if you disbelieve me, that's your own prerogative. I don't need to defend my position against a straw man argument more than once. Look back at your post just prior to this one, and ask yourself whether the same could be said of you...also consider that what you just said here is a personal insult, which is supposed to be something not tolerated at this forum. Like I said to Karl...I understand why you are behaving the way you are. You clearly don't appreciate that the majority of the forum is opposed to the Libertarian style philosophy, which you prefer. It's just something you're going to have to get over. It doesn't mean others are stupid or even wrong if they disagree with you. It doesn't mean you're right if you've done some research...even intelligent people are capable of coming to false conclusions.

Yes, that is my point of view. Kind of like how the US is currently! Except done in the reverse way which it currently is, so that it benefits society and individuals, rather than harms them. As for the rest...no one likes it when words are put in their mouth, especially when they're untrue (which they are here). It doesn't reflect well on you or Brian to misrepresent someone like this...it is a straw man argument, which is something based in deception rather than integrity and truth. You're basically saying that an argument I didn't make is something you disagree with...well, that has nothing to do with me, or any arguments I've made. And I also disagree with the points of the straw man that has been set up in my place...who in their right mind would be opposed to business, when they are advocating for everyone to have jobs that pay well? I really didn't expect it from Brian, as he's usually a calm person with his cultivation practices...and I actually understand why he had the outburst in this case, because it seems he is having a hard time dealing with much of the forum not caring for his Libertarian ideas. We get worked up over important issues...so I get it. I only wish he took the time to see my point, rather than lumping it into a category that I have nothing to do with. But that has little to do with me. Anyway, once again finding no reason to continue a discussion with you, Karl. That happens a lot...

The ability to grasp what someone else is saying is a sign of intelligence. Okay for one: I'm not opposed to capitalism, nor do I think running a business makes a person evil. Total misinterpretation of everything I've said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man For further info, go back and reread my posts without the bias.

You're misinterpreting my point of view.

Yes, I think you're right...seems like too broad of a generalization, and too micromanaging. There are times when cold water is good - such as on a hot day when you want to cool down. It seems to me to be more hydrating to have cool water rather than warm...at least that's the case for me, because I store spring water at room temp, and in the summer it's not even enjoyable or thirst quenching to drink it. Almost want to put it in the fridge first. If the spleen+stomach and kidney yang are healthy, should be no problem if the water is cool. The stomach might get cold in it as a result, especially if it's literally ice cold water...but it will be warmed back up by the body's own energy, the kidney yang.

No, the reason why that is, is because of everything the Libertarian is opposed to: government hand outs, and minimum wage. Take away those things and the poorest today would have less than the poorest of 50 (since the war on poverty began), or 100 years ago...in fact, considering how our society works, it'd be so bad for those people, that to take away those things is considered inhumane and illegal.

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=33026

A little bit of standing benefits the kidneys, but too much standing harms the kidneys. Too much is when it makes your legs stiff just afterward, just enough is when it activates your legs or basically makes you "ready". Just my opinion.

The following will be as much time as I waste on replying...I shouldn't have even posted the emotive quip in the first place, because it was pointless, but it's easy to get worked up over these issues... I watched up to 1:35 and already saw through his first argument. Are you able to, as well? What thousands of years of economic law are you talking about? If that existed, I would disagree with it considering that 1 in 3 children in America are living in poverty level households as a result of "expert" economists. Why isn't our nation thriving? I say it's nonsense because it's not even worth debating sometimes. I also said it because you said: "the mistake you are making is to equate wages with productivity"...no, I'm not making that mistake at all, but perhaps you are, by asserting a position that a minimum wage worker sometimes isn't worth that cost/isn't productive or valuable enough. The reality is that wages rarely ever equal a worker's worth...Football players can earn millions for playing a damn sport, and someone else can bust their ass in a job that no one else wants, which actually does require skills, and be paid the minimum, just because that's the way things are. No, I fully believe it. But you can't handpick examples and expect that to relay the truth of an entire economy. Intelligent people are able to see through that. What law...minimum wage? If I knew without a doubt that it hurt more than helped, I would not support it. However, I know without a doubt that it helps more than hurts for there to be a minimum wage. If you knew that the Libertarian version of economics hurt more than helped, would you continue believing in it? Would you? Do you consider yourself blind? Do you think I consider myself blind? What's the point of continuing a discussion?

Just pure nonsense.

I've gotten through about half of that list now... The book in your first link seems interesting, and I will be picking it up soon. Of course that one would take quite a while to read thoroughly so I don't plan on eventually responding to it. But it seems nice that it's based on actual studies, and I do like to consider what serious people have to say if it's in opposition to my beliefs...perhaps I'm wrong. Much of the arguments opposed to minimum wages, living wages, and wage increases, in the links above, come from a place of speculation. Various economists "predict" this or that. The general idea is that wage increases cause some businesses to not be able to operate as efficiently, or at all, and that reduces overall jobs for the bottom percentage of workers. So instead of working for next to nothing, they won't be working, is the idea. A lot isn't considered in that, though. Such as the fact that if workers have more money, they will be spending more money, and that opens up new job opportunities...there's a greater demand, and therefore a greater demand for workers to supply that. To be realistic, we have to broaden our perspective to what actually happens for the lowest earners, rather than being myopic. We have to not look at an immediate impact of a drastic wage increase, for instance...which cause business owners to freak out and jack up prices or fire employees...but look more long term, at least when we're considering implementing living wages. The goal of people who want a living wage is not to have it today, if that harms them and the economy, but to have it soon. I'm sure most will be relieved with a slow implementation, rather than no implementation at all. There is absolutely no proof that a living wage itself harms the lowest skilled or bottom of the barrel workers.