split from "sometimes I feel that" thread

[Aetherous]

Capitalism is fine as long as it's controlled by the state

 

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...

Edited August 10, 2015 by Aetherous

[Karl]

Can't stand the heat stay out of the capitalism

[Brian]

<snip>

These people who run businesses are in general the greedy bastards responsible for society's ills. Yes.

<snip>

 

I think I interpreted you pretty faithfully.

 

In fact, I was tempted to do a line-by-line unpacking of your post because it was chock full o' Marxist propaganda.

 

I was having fun playing off your over-the-top rhetoric but I wasn't upset -- I know you are a gentle person who is emotionally centered and information-focused discussions seem to bounce off you like marshmallows tossed from across the room. I chose, instead, to use a little hyperbole to get your attention (and to have a little fun...)

[Aetherous]

I think I interpreted you pretty faithfully.

 

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.

 

I know you are a gentle person who is emotionally centered and information-focused discussions seem to bounce off you like marshmallows tossed from across the room.

 

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.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Aetherous

[Brian]

The clause "in general" is like "with few exceptions" or "as a rule" or "almost always" -- the modifier is used to indicate that the described condition or circumstance is not quite universally true. I, therefore, thought it worthwhile to point out a few of the dozens of "people who run businesses" I personally encountered over the weekend who don't fit the mold you rolled out. Of course, I can't say that none of them were greedy or were bastards but I saw absolutely no indication that they were. In fact, I observed one of them load a dresser into his pickup truck and drive it 20 miles to help a complete srtanger who had purchased something from ANOTHER vendor which wouldn't fit into the back of the guy's SUV. That's right, he dropped everything at the end of the festival and left his stuff sitting on the curb to help the competition's customer at his own expense.

 

I would say, based on my own experiences, that the overwhelming majority of "people who run businesses" do NOT fit your description.

[Brian]

Back to my original point, though -- how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the societal model you espouse and the message of so many spiritual teachings? I mentioned several chapters of the DDJ earlier in the thread and called attention to the fact that it is unambiguous about the deleterious effects on society of government manipulation, and I asked why so many people align themselves with such teachings from an intellectual perspective but then live their lives in opposition to them.

 

You responded by basically saying I clearly must want children to starve in the streets...

 

<sigh>

[Aetherous]

I would say, based on my own experiences, that the overwhelming majority of "people who run businesses" do NOT fit your description.

 

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.

[Karl]

The 'bad guys' are the ones wanting to create unemployment through minimum wage laws.

A company doesn't pay people to give them a comfy life, it pays them the market rate which is that which the entire market has judged as the correct price for their labour.

 

Just as you pay the market rate for a car, I'm sure you are not considering the living conditions of the salesman, the garage owner, mechanics, advertising agencies, car manufacturing company staff etc etc which go to make up a car sale. I expect you might shop around, weigh up the advantages and prices before shelling out your 'hard earned' cash. You do this every day on groceries and other commodities and never bother to wonder if the owner of the shop is struggling to make a living.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Karl

[Aetherous]

Back to my original point, though -- how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the societal model you espouse and the message of so many spiritual teachings?

 

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...

 

This is a crucial but generally misunderstood lesson in Chapters 57 - 59 of the TTC -- people of good character should be left to care for themselves and for each other, and attempting to control and manipulate them progressively makes things worse, resulting in a steepening downward spiral.

 

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.

[Karl]

you envision a state that will not privilege business interests over regular citizens?

i am with you there brother. it also sounds rather marxist.

i still call fantasy on that.

and if we remove state entirely then the barons will hire an army to kill off any citizens that live on coal land.

it isnt like they havnt already done that very thing numerous times with us presidential/senate/governor/ approval.

 

And as if by magic:

 

 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/animas-river-spill-08-06-2015.html

 

 

who needs rogue businesses damaging the environment on the backs of state privilege when you can cut out the middleman and the state can just get on with doing it in a more direct fashion.

 

I should mention here that the fairly recent catastrophe with the oil rig which caught fire and then spewed millions of barbells of oil into the sea, was a direct result of the state forcing the BP to go drilling in the deep sea instead of closer to the land. This deep water operation was not considered to be any more hazardous than shallow water drilling so regulations remained unaltered.

[Brian]

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.

I am in complete agreement.

[Brian]

And as if by magic:http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/animas-river-spill-08-06-2015.htmlwho needs rogue businesses damaging the environment on the backs of state privilege when you can cut out the middleman and the state can just get on with doing it in a more direct fashion.I should mention here that the fairly recent catastrophe with the oil rig which caught fire and then spewed millions of barbells of oil into the sea, was a direct result of the state forcing the BP to go drilling in the deep sea instead of closer to the land. This deep water operation was not considered to be any more hazardous than shallow water drilling so regulations remained unaltered.

Oops! Unintended consequences strike again. Well, as long as the busybodies had good intentions...

[Aetherous]

A company doesn't pay people to give them a comfy life, it pays them the market rate which is that which the entire market has judged as the correct price for their labour.

 

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.

[Brian]

I am in complete agreement.

Here's where we disagree, though. I think I should use my words, actions and energy to make the world a better place and to encourage others to act from virtue, using force as lightly and as infrequently as possible -- with use of that force being an indicator of needed adjustments on my part.

 

Those taking the opposite tack, on the other hand, seem to think that they are justified in using force to take my energy to give to others as they see fit, including to bullies who will do their dirty work, and to compel my words and actions to protect others against the possibility that I might not act from virtue.

[Brian]

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.

But that's exactly what happens in the absence of external manipulation. Wanna try it out? Open a fast-food restaurant in your neighborhood in direct competition with McDonald's -- similar menu and everything. Pay all your employees a flat $15/hr and provide full benefits to all of them at no cost to the employees. Make sure you include the entire supply chain so that every employee at every one of your partners is treated fairly, too - from the janitor at the company which makes your toilet paper to the anchorperson on the TV station where you run an ad touting your Progressive vison.

 

Of course, you may have to adjust the prices on your menu but I'm sure the people leaving WalMart or Costco with a car full of hungry kids won't mind.

 

I suspect you'll corner the market and run that local McDonald's out of business in a matter of months.

[Aetherous]

Here's where we disagree, though. I think I should use my words, actions and energy to make the world a better place and to encourage others to act from virtue, using force as lightly and as infrequently as possible -- with use of that force being an indicator of needed adjustments on my part.

 

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.

[Aetherous]

But that's exactly what happens in the absence of external manipulation. Wanna try it out? Open a fast-food restaurant in your neighborhood in direct competition with McDonald's -- similar menu and everything. Pay all your employees a flat $15/hr and provide full benefits to all of them at no cost to the employees. Make sure you include the entire supply chain so that every employee at every one of your partners is treated fairly, too - from the janitor at the company which makes your toilet paper to the anchorperson on the TV station where you run an ad touting your Progressive vison.

 

Of course, you may have to adjust the prices on your menu but I'm sure the people leaving WalMart or Costco with a car full of hungry kids won't mind.

 

I suspect you'll corner the market and run that local McDonald's out of business in a matter of months.

 

Chipotle is doing alright!

 

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

Edited August 10, 2015 by Aetherous

[Karl]

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.

 

It IS what the market thinks they are worth. Believe it or not McDonald's, their suppliers, customers, workers and managers are ALL the market. We are the market, you are the market. It's your choices and decisions that are ultimately responsible for the price of labour at McDonalds-even if you never ever eat at McDonalds.

 

Once you decide to interfere with this market rate, then the market gets skewed and then unintended things happen. Same thing when the bank lowers interest rates artificially, money is cheaper than it should otherwise be. The risk of gambling on stocks becomes less and malinvestment ripples out into the market as people buy assets, houses, stock buy backs, old cars, paintings etc. instead of production there is asset speculation.

 

Everything that interferes with the market does this.

 

If a minimum wage was the answer to poverty, then we could have solved Africa's problems years ago. Just create every job at a living wage.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

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.

But that is very specifically NOT what I have suggested would be appropriate. In fact, I have been VERY clear, have made a pointed effort to stress, that the sudden dissolution of existing governmental interventions and manipulations would be a very BAD thing!

 

It would probably be helpful to go back a few pages in this thread and read what I actually wrote...

[Aetherous]

But that is very specifically NOT what I have suggested would be appropriate. In fact, I have been VERY clear, have made a pointed effort to stress, that the sudden dissolution of existing governmental interventions and manipulations would be a very BAD thing!

 

It would probably be helpful to go back a few pages in this thread and read what I actually wrote...

 

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...

[Aetherous]

It IS what the market thinks they are worth.

 

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

[Brian]

I don't "want to make wages even lower" -- I don't want to "make" wages anything at all, and I don't want you to, either. Unless, of course, you are talking about the wages in the business YOU run! I want you to follow your heart and your conscious and treat your employees as fellow human beings. I encourage others to do the same.

[Aetherous]

I don't "want to make wages even lower" -- I don't want to "make" wages anything at all, and I don't want you to, either. Unless, of course, you are talking about the wages in the business YOU run! I want you to follow your heart and your conscious and treat your employees as fellow human beings. I encourage others to do the same.

 

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.

[Karl]

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

 

How do you think they decide on the rate of pay ?

 

How is it that those that work for them voluntarily accept that rate ? Why don't they go elsewhere ?

 

How is that a McDonald meal costs whatever it does, or the materials they buy are so much ?

[Karl]

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.

That's your decision. If you wish to pay more than market rate then something else must give. Perhaps you employ fewer people and automate. Maybe you buy cheaper ingredients, reduce size of meals, have less pleasant stores. Whatever, you have to balance your business model. If you fail to do this adequately the market will punish you. Ultimately your business may fold and all the employees are out of a job.

 

These really are basics. If you aren't at this level then it's going to be very tough going to discuss much beyond this.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Karl