Perhaps the GOP should think twice about worshipping Ayn Rand

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The surprise for the Democrats in 2012 will be that the "Conservatives" are no longer only the religious right. They are a group of people, undefined, without a specific leader that believes in the foundation of the US Constitution, individual liberties AND responsibilities. There are many things that I disagree with Ayn Rand about but the one thing she did understand is that each individual should have the right to contract a job, a relationship or anything else as an individual and not as a "collective." Ayn Rand's philosophy is impossible because information is not free and most individuals are not willing to put their asses on the line to accept the responsibilities of their actions.

........so much for "united" we stand -- divided we fall!! Individualism MUST have its limits. We don't declare war as "individual" states but as a United Nation! It is ONLY collectively that we CAN do what we CANNOT do individually! Hmmmmm!
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't assume that they will understand. I assume, rightly, that if workers agreed, the hand of the employer would be forced to meet their demands (ie, the basic concept of a labor union).

There's no logical way you can assume "rightly" as there's no way you can predict what each and every employer is going to do in order to hire potential employees to perform labor for them. This is what you want to believe, and it's fine if you choose to. Alas I don't believe that everyone is just going to do what they say when the issue is about money and how to get what you want without spending too much.

Those who demand more will be out of luck, and those who are willing to settle will prevail. That may not fully protect the workers, but then they're not in charge - the people who pay out the money are. And make no mistake: employers will pay what it takes to keep those who are worth it to them. If that weren't true, no one would make more than minimum wage in a system that imposes one.

They're actually being forced to settle since most employers know there are tons of college students every year desperate for work after graduation, and are willing to take any position they can get to start paying off the debts they incurred. At the same time, entry level salaries for college grads have been on a decline for nearly four years and it's only been recently that there's been a small boost. Employers realize that they can afford to let go or not keep on the payroll the older worker who has the experience and demands the higher salary because of it, since our nation has bought into the ideology that a college degree is the ultimate symbol of intelligence and ability.

Either that, or they can outsource a job to a different country where their currency is much weaker than the dollar. And we know some major corporations just love sending jobs to India & China.

And don't exaggerate. While the lack of a set minimum wage was part of the "child labor" era, that one factor wouldn't necessarily re-create that entire picture automatically. An inability to judge the parts separate from the whole is just as bad as the inverse.

What you fail to either acknowledge or understand is that many of the things we all take for granted (or you assume will just happen out of good faith) on the workforce were all due to government moving forward and establishing regulations for them. The minimum wage was just one of many examples I listed while making my point, and there's no inability on my behalf to look at every issue individually so you can refrain from using that line of questioning from here on out. Again, if you want to blindly assume that employers are going to understand the struggles of their employees and pay them accordingly then more power to you. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that many of them couldn't give a damn and it's dangerous to assume otherwise.
 

D_Ben Twilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
97
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
And just as much evidence that others do a beautiful job and don't need to be regulated. If I'm choosing to believe things I want, you're doing just as much of it yourself. Ultimately, I think you want guarantees and I want to be free of the burdens guarantees can create on the way.
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And just as much evidence that others do a beautiful job and don't need to be regulated.

There's no such thing as someone doing a job without any form of rules or regulation, whether it be from a supervisor of a company or the government invoking legislation to ensure some level of standards to their employees. Even self employed people instill a set of rules for themselves in order to perform services for their clients. To eliminate regulations from the government level, you give more freedom to employers to do what they want under no guarantee that the ones they hire will be properly compensated for their time.

If I'm choosing to believe things I want, you're doing just as much of it yourself.

Please, no bouts of false equivalency here. I'm not doing what you are doing. The things I speak about in this thread are not just a series of ideological beliefs. They are quite provable.

Case in point... Do you deny that our nation has a problem with providing quality jobs to people?
Don't think that outsourcing is an issue? - source
That college students are entering a job market where entry level salaries are paying less? - source

That most changes surrounding the rights of workers were ultimately brought upon on by government regulation and not out of the "good will" of employers or just allowing Capitalism to run its course with no checks and/or balances? - link one - link two - link three

I could go on, but I think I've illustrated that I'm not just spewing ideology here.

Ultimately, I think you want guarantees and I want to be free of the burdens guarantees can create on the way.

Being employed or hired for a job is nothing more than a series of guarantees made between an employer and an employee to provide services in exchange for a specific compensation package. To be "free" of such things would mean that you either don't work, or you're willing to provide labor for someone with no negotiations or guidelines established beforehand (and a hope that they pay you), or you're a slave with no say in the matter. There aren't many people I can think of who would really want to work under those loose stipulations.

This discussion reminds me of an episode of Evangelion that I saw when I was younger. Through something referred to as the Instrumentality Project, a person was placed in a world where there was "absolute freedom"; a world with no rules or restrictions. People love to claim that they want this in real life, yet when he was presented with it he found himself scared since he didn't know what to do. So much in fact that they had to draw a floor so he could walk, even though in the process he gave up the ability to fly. What we perceive as "freedom" is nothing without a level of assurance that we can do what we please with the possibility of a manageable level of consequence. It's not as "free" as you think.
 
Last edited:

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
But you assume certain things, especially that it's a given for the government to pick up the remainder of the bill.
In many cases it is the government that has to pick up the balance when people don't have enough to make ends meet, either directly (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) or indirectly (through increased expenditures on things like law enforcement due to increases in poverty-related crime).

Maybe part of the problem is that we teach survival of the fittest in public schools but are too bashful to let it be part of our reality. Harsh but true.
Well, part of the idea is that having a civilization is what allows us to rise above the state of being mere animals, and "being civilized" includes things like not leaving people to fend for themselves.

There's also the issue that when people are left to fend for themselves, it doesn't just affect them, it affects everyone: Poverty-related crimes are usually not targeted to the poor; generally they're directed at people who are perceived to have more than they need. So if you say "let them fend for themselves," it's likely to come back to bite you in the butt - unless of course you spend extra money on law enforcement (increasing your tax burden) or you can afford to live in a gated community (increasing your cost of living).

And I can see that you feel it's better to pay the $9, but do you think it should necessarily be a requirement on employers that the $9 be paid? It starts getting Orwellian at that point.
It's hard to say. On the one hand, a minimum wage shouldn't be needed because employers, looking at the long term/big picture, would see that underpaying employees is a false economy because of all of the problems that poverty creates and would thus, acting in their own self-interest, pay their employees enough to lift them out of poverty. On the other hand, publicly traded companies are legally bound to pursue short-term profits - which usually means cutting wages and benefits - so a minimum wage requirement helps to ensure that certain minimum standards of living are being met - and thus helps to reduce the problems created by poverty. So, in an ideal world, a minimum wage wouldn't be needed, but under the current system, it is.

Again, I feel its a matter of pay for it now, or pay for it later: If you pay for it now, you're at least paying the people who are actually working to generate a profit for you; pay for it later through taxes and it becomes a drag on society - not to mention that you have to deal with all of the other problems in the meantime. You could also look at it as a case of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure": Better to spend a little more money in the short term to help prevent poverty than have to spend more money in the long term dealing with the social and economic consequences of that poverty.

Again, this is just my take on the matter.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Back at the original topic. How will the American religious right deal with the reality that their economic guru is a follower of a philosopher who thought that religion is complete fallacy and a waste of time?

They only see what they want to see. How often does this line get any attention:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV)

More here
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
a benefit of a higher minimum wage other than less need for what the right term the nanny state is the boost to the economy. Low income workers spend a larger percentage of there income and actually are a large part of the consumer economy. For that reason they represent a larger economic bang for your buck.

While yes if you remove the minimum wage more jobs would be created in the us they wouldn't pay enough to live in the us thus forcing the government to subsidized the lives of the workers being paid $3 an hour. which isnt sustainable as the corporations benefiting from the cheep labor usually dont pay much in the way of taxes.

Theres plenty of evidence in the job exporting frenzy of the 80s that companies generally dont care about the conditions of the workers who produce there products. If they did walmart wouldn't exist.

Government regulation is in most cases a positive for the public. Regulations are the peoples tool to manage the relationship between the interests companies and the public good as the two are usually mutuality exclusive. Removing those safeguards for the profit of a few wealthy people IMO tantamount to treason as it is consciously choosing to do widespread harm to fellow citizens.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If you want economic competitiveness with countries who have weaker currency you make it cost ineffective to move the factories to that country by imposing a tax penalty for outsourcing like every sine industrialized nation has done.

side-note this has been proposed many times and shot down by both parties.
 

D_Ben Twilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
97
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
While yes if you remove the minimum wage more jobs would be created in the us they wouldn't pay enough to live in the us thus forcing the government to subsidized the lives of the workers being paid $3 an hour. which isnt sustainable as the corporations benefiting from the cheep labor usually dont pay much in the way of taxes.
Like I said, you assume the government has to carry people who can't make it on their own. That's the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Life can be pretty harsh.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Like I said, you assume the government has to carry people who can't make it on their own. That's the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Life can be pretty harsh.

in a modern society a large starving population is extremely destabilizing which would require something like continuous martial law to stop massive rioting. Unless the right to bear arms is removed along side the minimum wage or at least curtailed to income restrictions uprisings could become a very real possibility. To avoid that outcome and an extremely expensive need population suppression a modern government needs to ensure the working poor are at least mildly comfortable.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Then what? The poor people shoot the rich people, form a benevolent co-op state, and live happily ever after?

thats the post colonial story of many countries with out the happily ever after part. revolutions usually are extremely short sighted