Occupy Dreamviews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydude007

I never made any false assumption. Your suggesting increasing the minimum wage. Or, sorry, to keep to your original wording, getting rid of the minimum wage and putting a minimum on wage 'suitable for living'. Please do, cease conversation with me here, and preferably on this topic with anyone else.

---

Yes you did make a false assumption

The term redistribution of wealth generally applies to taxes. This is not a tax argument. I am not talking about talking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I am talking about employers paying their own employees what they are rightfully due. Its NOT the employers money, it is the employees money. Its a humanitarian argument. The original purpose of a minimum wage was to ensure workers are not living in poverty. Were it not for the government to enforce a min.wage to begin with, America would have mass city wide bread lines. Minimum wage increased the quality of life for Americans.

Well, we have workers living in poverty again - make min. wage into a living wage - its not rocket science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Basic amenities should not be a possible argument for minimum wage.


The very poorest people have housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

Solution to this problem: give everybody housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

I like your style.

---

You act like a standard in living is some how a communist agenda

All American cities have housing codes already - these are standards in living. They include how many people you can lawfully cram into a living space. How low a ceiling can be. Windows that can open and close. Secure electrical wiring. Running water and a host of other codes.

But poverty has no power to abide by code.

And since you seem so happy to post a single knee jerk image and ignore disparity between the rich and poor across the globe - I think this traditional russian house is kinda of cute
http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com...wood-house.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Yes you did make a false assumption

The term redistribution of wealth generally applies to taxes. This is not a tax argument. I am not talking about talking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I am talking about employers paying their own employees what they are rightfully due. Its NOT the employers money, it is the employees money. Its a humanitarian argument. The original purpose of a minimum wage was to ensure workers are not living in poverty. Were it not for the government to enforce a min.wage to begin with, America would have mass city wide bread lines. Minimum wage increased the quality of life for Americans.

Well, we have workers living in poverty again - make min. wage into a living wage - its not rocket science.

---

Wrong on three accounts:

1) What an employee is "rightfully due" is an awfully subjective argument; one that cannot stand up to any objective measure. Everyone's productivity is not the same.
2) It is the employer's money until the money is given to the employees for their labor. What would be the point of running a business if every cent you earned went directly and only to the people you employed? How would such a model be sustainable?
3) The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min. wage.

I don't think that's what she was saying, housing like that shouldn't exist at all, it's a shame for the whole country.

"and thus conclude that people should not have the choice to decide what services they want to pay for?"

They can vote can't they? If these people loose, their taxes go another way, maybe toward a higher minimal standard of the health, education, and quality of living for every citizen of the country, boo hoo, that's the cost of living in a democracy. I just don't understand how rich people with more than the means to do this don't feel responsibility for the whole, innocently in need, they are only a part of.

I seriously can't take most of your post seriously - you're just arguing over things no one even mentioned.

Small business are suffering because their customers are growing poorer and would rather buy cheap at walmart. Cheap labor creates people who can only buy cheap. And cheap products are created by - cheap labor. Therefore the cheap system feeds itself infinitely into cheapness. We need to lift the system not squash it!

The goal is to increase all wages to living wages - or to increase the purchasing power. This doesn't mean we have to kill small business in the act. It just means the solution must be creative. This is why Occupy focuses on the goal and not the means of the goal - we can accomplish a goal in many different ways. How about institutionalizing a maximum wage for corporations that are not qualified as small business?

This maximum wage means the CEO and other top members in the business can only give themselves a wage increase - by first increasing everyone elses wages. This idea "I make money when you make money" works very well in the creative industry. It makes agents work harder to promote their artists and authors - they have to! How much more dedicated would a CEO be to their employees and to the business when their bonus is proportionate to everyone's bonus? Very dedicated - as now the CEO serves the business and their employees and not the other way around!!

This is also the relationship we need with our politicians

Oh yeah and, in my years of making min. wage - the min. wage has increased by two dollars. Last I check, the economy didn't explode because of that. It did however give me more purchasing power.

Oh yeah and another thing - my mom is now working in a business place where her boss' paycheck is proportional to her sales (and her paycheck). Therefore the boss has every incentive to make her work experience positive.

"The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min."

If everyone has more money, you'll sell more... if your product is good. If you go out of business, good, your product sucks, get creative and make a product people with nice minimal wages can and will buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

They can vote can't they? If these people loose, their taxes go another way, maybe toward a higher minimal standard of the health, education, and quality of living for every citizen of the country, boo hoo, that's the cost of living in a democracy. I just don't understand how rich people with more than the means to do this don't feel responsibility for the whole, innocently in need, they are only a part of.

---

I agree

Some people are afraid of democracy. Theyre afraid of what we will choose and that we will fail. But still I believe earnestly that the people must decide - even if they decide wrong. Our societies evolve like any other creature. We make mistakes. We suffer, we learn. We make better choices.

I don't understand why we even elect politicians who have the freedom to make important decisions by themselves. Why isn't every important decision subjected to the citizens vote? It might force everyone to actually think for themselves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I seriously can't take most of your post seriously - you're just arguing over things no one even mentioned.

---

The fuck are you talking about? My post was completely related to what you said.

Quote:

---

Small business are suffering because their customers are growing poorer and would rather buy cheap at walmart. Cheap labor creates people who can only buy cheap. And cheap products are created by - cheap labor. Therefore the cheap system feeds itself infinitely into cheapness. We need to lift the system not squash it!

---

Sure, economic development is always great. But let's not ruin our plans to lift it by squashing it with some sort of nonsensical living wage.

Quote:

---

The goal is to increase all wages to living wages - or to increase the purchasing power. This doesn't mean we have to kill small business in the act. It just means the solution must be creative. This is why Occupy focuses on the goal and not the means of the goal - we can accomplish a goal in many different ways. How about institutionalizing a maximum wage for corporations that are not qualified as small business?

This maximum wage means the CEO and other top members in the business can only give themselves a wage increase - by first increasing everyone elses wages. This idea "I make money when you make money" works very well in the creative industry. It makes agents work harder to promote their artists and authors - they have to! How much more dedicated would a CEO be to their employees and to the business when their bonus is proportionate to everyone's bonus? Very dedicated - as now the CEO serves the business and their employees and not the other way around!!

This is also the relationship we need with our politicians

---

This living wage stuff is just the minimum wage argument but with greater sums of money. The consequences are still the same. You're not going to avoid them by throwing more money into the equation.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah and, in my years of making min. wage - the min. wage has increased by two dollars. Last I check, the economy didn't explode because of that. It did however give me more purchasing power.

---

I said it's a cause of unemployment, not that it makes economies to explode. And you were presumably one of the lucky ones; one whose productivity matched min. wage levels or one who quite literally got lucky and managed to hold a job despite productivity.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah and another thing - my mom is now working in a business place where her boss' paycheck is proportional to her sales (and her paycheck). Therefore the boss has every incentive to make her work experience positive.

---

Okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

"The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min."

If everyone has more money, you'll sell more... if your product is good. If you go out of business, good, your product sucks, get creative and make a product people with nice minimal wages can and will buy.

---

But everyone won't have more money. Only those privileged few who are being paid higher than what they're worth. In a way, it's Bastiat all over again

Thank the gods for the second and tenth amendments.

nonsensical living wage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

nonsensical living wage?

---

Meaning installing a living wage in order to spur economic development would be nonsensical.

I don't think we can do things like this with mere taxes, I think there should be "projects" where people who are stupidly rich can be honored for being a philosophically wise person by putting their name on a plaque or something and seriously bring some positive stimulus to the foundation of the country, creating a sort of "strong foundation effect", you know, like the rest of nature works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

But everyone won't have more money. Only those privileged few who are being paid higher than what they're worth. In a way, it's Bastiat all over again

---

This is why occupy isn't a single issue movement and talks about a systemic problem

You're right that having more money doesn't equal purchasing power. There is a legitimate concern that increasing wages will land us in the same spot because corporations will want to sustain the status quo - and just increase the price of everything. This is further complicated that our American dollar is being issued out by a private bank - for profit. Which is then even further complicated that everything runs on oil - and oil companies happily name their price and directly influence the purchasing power of the dollar.

Increasing the purchasing power in wages is a secondary goal. First, we gotta end the fed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Meaning installing a living wage in order to spur economic development would be nonsensical.

---

Its for humanitarian purposes first. No worker should live in poverty.

"There is a legitimate concern that increasing wages will land us in the same spot because corporations will want to sustain the status quo - and just increase the price of everything."

Those businesses should then be replaced by genuinely good and original businesses who aren't arrogant enough to demand unfair prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Seriously if people would just read my words this would go a lot smoother.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

First you say I read too much into your words now you say I don't read into them enough. Honestly, which is it with you?

---

Case in point, bolded. You have to read the lines before you can read between them. I'm willing to allow certain people to interpret unspoken meaning in my words if they demonstrate an ability to do so with fairness to my intended message. In your case... no, just stick with what I literally say only please.


So Laughing Man, do you have anything to say about my overall argument? Can you connect your piecemeal criticism in a way that relates to the whole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Case in point, bolded. You have to read the lines before you can read between them. I'm willing to allow certain people to interpret unspoken meaning in my words if they demonstrate an ability to do so with fairness to my intended message. In your case... no, just stick with what I literally say only please.


So Laughing Man, do you have anything to say about my overall argument? Can you connect your piecemeal criticism in a way that relates to the whole?

---

hahahaha oh god.... I was a laughing man after reading that LMAO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Its for humanitarian purposes first. No worker should live in poverty.

---

Try to get this through your skull: most low skilled workers would be laid off and would therefore be making zero dollars if the minimum wage was drastically increased. Businesses aren't charities, and no sane employer would hire someone for more money than that person brings in extra profit. This is an extremely simple idea, why can't you get it?

Why can't the government give money to businesses to accommodate the higher minimum wage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Why can't the government give money to businesses to accommodate the higher minimum wage?

---

Where are they gonna get the money to do that from? You can't just make money without devaluing currency. So the only way they could do that would be to tax people, which takes more money away from the people. It solves no problems. The government doesn't provide much of anything so they can't create wealth. They can't create wealth, products or (useful)jobs, they just move money around.

I guess it could only come from people who have the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I guess it could only come from people who have the money.

---

False. The poor and middle class pay all taxes. Inflation is paid mostly by the poor, and income taxes are paid mostly by the middle class. The rich don't pay taxes, and even if you somehow concocted a foolproof way to tax them personally, guess what? They'll just move their businesses to some other country. And who gets the shaft? The poor and middle class again, having less jobs.

The US shouldn't even trade with countries that have exploitative labor laws.

I don't think taxes are gonna do much. I think these problems need to be solved on a whole different realm apart from law and politics. There are people out there with billions of dollars, sitting there, century after century, just so they can have the comfort in knowing that they can always live a life of sickeningly excessive luxury if they wanted to, just to be inherited by their children who can do the same. What these people should be convinced to realize is that they are analogous to tumors, blocking off the flow of energy to the rest of the brain they refuse to accept they are in the most literal sense a part of, one with. If the philosophy of our culture can rise up more strongly to this concept, and make these people in power realize it as well, they might convert their latent billions to energy for the whole of the country. They can set up projects they all agree upon, providing money for higher minimal standards of living for their whole country they often so identify with, providing promising new and original small businesses with the means to compete with big corporations or suppressing them from increasing their prices. I'm sure one of these people will be no less happy or fulfilled if they choose not to buy a second yacht and instead use the few million for such a cause, they might even feel more fulfilled.