Page 211 of 212 FirstFirst ... 201211 ... LastLast
Results 5,251 to 5,275 of 5283
  1. #5251
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    By their nature, the benefits I listed would not be clearly visible, unlike a company's employment rate and remuneration packages. Because of this, it can't really be stated that 'it's not happening'.
    no, it's really not happening


  2. #5252
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    no, it's really not happening

    How does a video on wealth distribution show that the benefits of increased business profits do not exist?

    On the topic of wealth distribution however, North Korean citizens have a fairly similar wealth distribution - everyone is equally poor.

    Capitalism has its imperfections, but capitalist societies have the highest standards of living in the world, bar none. Relative poverty does not equal absolute poverty.

  3. #5253
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,695
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,263 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    Wages are based on supply and demand. You can artificially inflate the worth of one's labour by paying a 'living wage', but that has consequences. Increased wages are a cost to the business, that in turn can lead to unemployment, and/or higher prices of products to customers. When one receives a pay rise, but has to pay more for a product, they may have had a wage increase but their real wage has not increased.
    I think you missed the part where big businesses are absorbing an overabundance of the money. They're taking too much. They can afford a higher salary to their employees while still making the profits needed to keep reinvesting in themselves. They simply choose not to because they can get away with it.

    A billion dollars in the hands of the people go much further than it does in the hands of a business.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  4. #5254
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    I think you missed the part where big businesses are absorbing an overabundance of the money. They're taking too much. They can afford a higher salary to their employees while still making the profits needed to keep reinvesting in themselves. They simply choose not to because they can get away with it.

    A billion dollars in the hands of the people go much further than it does in the hands of a business.
    So what are you suggesting?

    Also, to add: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27459178

  5. #5255
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    How does a video on wealth distribution show that the benefits of increased business profits do not exist?
    i'm not saying benefits do not exist but the context of which US operates in, it doesn't exist for the big businesses.

    On the topic of wealth distribution however, North Korean citizens have a fairly similar wealth distribution - everyone is equally poor.
    ok.

    Capitalism has its imperfections, but capitalist societies have the highest standards of living in the world, bar none. Relative poverty does not equal absolute poverty.
    you know that's a bunch of crock. you should know better living in EU...a non-capitalist region.

    i think you need to live here and see what people go through vs what people go through in EU.

  6. #5256
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    i'm not saying benefits do not exist but the context of which US operates in, it doesn't exist for the big businesses.
    Well, you're saying it doesn't, but we can't really point to anything to certify that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    you know that's a bunch of crock. you should know better living in EU...a non-capitalist region.

    i think you need to live here and see what people go through vs what people go through in EU.
    Which part is crock?

    You say I live in a non-capitalist region - I live in the UK, which has a similar economic outlook to the US, not the EU (a union which we may leave anyway). Where do you think the term 'Anglo-Saxon economics' when describing the free-market comes from? Britain is distinctly capitalist.

  7. #5257
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,695
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,263 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    So what are you suggesting?

    Also, to add: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27459178
    I wasn't suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out the reality we face.

    The problem with offering a solution in this case is that it won't fix the real problem, which is poor management of money on a national level. Fixing one area of it will just imbalance another to make up for the cost. If we raise minimum wages then we hurt smaller businesses. People will be cut from their jobs. Some will go elsewhere but many will fall back onto a social problem. But our social programs are strained because we mismanage our distribution of tax dollars. So we have a growing dependent class that's separating from the now rising middle class (those that kept their jobs). Meanwhile the rich will continue hogging the money wherever they can and buying off politicians to further their corporate agendas.

    Do you see my point? The entire system is the problem. It's been sold to the higher bidder. There is no solution. America is screwed.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  8. #5258
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    Well, you're saying it doesn't, but we can't really point to anything to certify that.
    ok, did you watch the video? what is there that you're not understanding? do you understand how the wealth distribution naturally should be? and most importantly, why?

    Which part is crock?

    You say I live in a non-capitalist region - I live in the UK, which has a similar economic outlook to the US, not the EU (a union which we may leave anyway). Where do you think the term 'Anglo-Saxon economics' when describing the free-market comes from? Britain is distinctly capitalist.
    lol please sell that crazy somewhere else. for starters, you guys had your universal healthcare more than half a century ago. you are nothing like the capitalist US.

    and EU has a way better life standard than the US. their mortality rate is also much higher. not to mention, education system.

  9. #5259
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    I wasn't suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out the reality we face.

    The problem with offering a solution in this case is that it won't fix the real problem, which is poor management of money on a national level. Fixing one area of it will just imbalance another to make up for the cost. If we raise minimum wages then we hurt smaller businesses. People will be cut from their jobs. Some will go elsewhere but many will fall back onto a social problem. But our social programs are strained because we mismanage our distribution of tax dollars. So we have a growing dependent class that's separating from the now rising middle class (those that kept their jobs). Meanwhile the rich will continue hogging the money wherever they can and buying off politicians to further their corporate agendas.

    Do you see my point? The entire system is the problem. It's been sold to the higher bidder. There is no solution. America is screwed.
    I do see your point, but, as an outsider I would not say 'America is screwed'.

    You have a big problem with crony capitalism (corporatism) - something we also have a problem with in UK, although not to as great an extent. Corporatism certainly needs addressing, but I can't get on-board with the whole 'regulation of business' thing. Corporatism can be addressed without an over-regulation of businesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    ok, did you watch the video? what is there that you're not understanding? do you understand how the wealth distribution naturally should be? and most importantly, why?

    lol please sell that crazy somewhere else. for starters, you guys had your universal healthcare more than half a century ago. you are nothing like the capitalist US.

    and EU has a way better life standard than the US. their mortality rate is also much higher. not to mention, education system.
    Yes I watched the video. I suppose you are going to tell me that the current wealth distribution is not natural, and that you wish to manufacture a 'natural' outcome? That would be ironic.

    The UK having nationalised health care system does not mean it is not capitalist - it is capitalist in nearly every way. A debate was had in the UK that health care should be considered a government responsibility, but the UK is still fiercely pro free-market (and, many actually wish to see the private sector involved in the NHS because it is a mess). By the way, we also have private health care.

    The EU is a group of countries, of both rich and poor. To say 'the EU has a way better life standard' is naive at best.

  10. #5260
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,695
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,263 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    You have a big problem with crony capitalism (corporatism) - something we also have a problem with in UK, although not to as great an extent. Corporatism certainly needs addressing, but I can't get on-board with the whole 'regulation of business' thing. Corporatism can be addressed without an over-regulation of businesses.
    Without regulation or a complete turn of cultural and political ethics, how do you solve it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    The EU is a group of countries, of both rich and poor. To say 'the EU has a way better life standard' is naive at best.
    That depends on how one defines equality of life. That said...

    + Europeans are generally healthier than Americans.
    + Europeans live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
    + Europeans enjoy socialized healthcare. Being poor in America can kill you.
    + Central and northern European nations score higher on tests.
    + Wealth distribution between the classes is more balanced in Europe.
    + Europe is more progressive when it comes to legal processing and recognizing human rights and freedoms.
    + Higher income (overall -- Poor Greece).

    I guess a negative would be that European homes are usually smaller, which would be kinda annoying. Not a big deal when compared to the positives though. At least you guys have tons of cool history. :Y
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  11. #5261
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    I do see your point, but, as an outsider I would not say 'America is screwed'.

    You have a big problem with crony capitalism (corporatism) - something we also have a problem with in UK, although not to as great an extent. Corporatism certainly needs addressing, but I can't get on-board with the whole 'regulation of business' thing. Corporatism can be addressed without an over-regulation of businesses.



    Yes I watched the video. I suppose you are going to tell me that the current wealth distribution is not natural, and that you wish to manufacture a 'natural' outcome? That would be ironic.

    The UK having nationalised health care system does not mean it is not capitalist - it is capitalist in nearly every way. A debate was had in the UK that health care should be considered a government responsibility, but the UK is still fiercely pro free-market (and, many actually wish to see the private sector involved in the NHS because it is a mess). By the way, we also have private health care.

    The EU is a group of countries, of both rich and poor. To say 'the EU has a way better life standard' is naive at best.
    you're right, i shouldn't say natural, i should say normal. it's not normal. a normal wealth distribution wouldn't be that skewed. this clearly represents that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, that's not normal, that's not how an economy is supposed to work.

    the money isn't trickling down. the corporations are retaining their money by exploiting people more.

    so i don't mean construct something, i'm saying we need to stop giving them so much power. they have a lot more power than the smaller businesses. it needs to be fair across the board. maybe some benefits of being a bigger company, i can certainly understand that you have to promote your best.

    but not give your country to your best and then let them influence the legislation system. that's what i'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    Without regulation or a complete turn of cultural and political ethics, how do you solve it?



    That depends on how one defines equality of life. That said...

    + Europeans are generally healthier than Americans.
    + Europeans live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
    + Europeans enjoy socialized healthcare. Being poor in America can kill you.
    + Central and northern European nations score higher on tests.
    + Wealth distribution between the classes is more balanced in Europe.
    + Europe is more progressive when it comes to legal processing and recognizing human rights and freedoms.
    + Higher income (overall -- Poor Greece).

    I guess a negative would be that European homes are usually smaller, which would be kinda annoying. Not a big deal when compared to the positives though. At least you guys have tons of cool history. :Y
    exactly. don't get me wrong, i still would prefer living here than EU because i think English is a superior language (and well i kinda don't desire living in UK lol, seems depressing, no offense to the british here) but some of the stuff i hear about EU just makes me jealous. like the swedish schooling system (err i think it was sweden) where they don't even test you until you're 16...and they have the highest test ratings in the world. IIRC.

    and i have heard nothing bug good things about the socialist services in EU. you are correct, they tend to have a more happy lifestyle. now correct me if i'm wrong but they also have a free babysitting system where you are covered by the govt. or maybe tht was canada. basically everywhere else i look, it seems they are more advanced in certain aspects that are otherwise stressful.

    you'd think all of these advancements came to the US first. that alone implies there is corruption here. e.g. there was an american writer who predicted back in 50s that if it continued like it was back in the day, we'd be working less hours than they did then...like 15-30...instead of 40. instead people are working 80-90 hours...and maybe 40-50 on an average. this implies that people are getting less and have less to spend so they end up working more hours to make up for the difference. this is not healthy and it only makes people sick physically and mentally.

    oh and guess who makes money off the physically/mentally sick. >_> it's almost like a vicious scheme.

    the point of living in a developed country is to be at ease and peace, not be completely stressed and worried about everything, having to rely on energy drinks, pills etc. to do work/chores so you may provide for your family. i don't know, maybe i just see it that way but it seems like people don't get a break in this country. everyone is working too much. this is coming from a guy who has worked twice overtime and that was because it was requested by the employer.

    I don't do more than i need to, i don't spend more than i need to. i have no loans, i don't require money. i don't buy things on loan. i feel at a lot more peace than most i see around me.

  12. #5262
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    Without regulation or a complete turn of cultural and political ethics, how do you solve it?
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating no regulation, I'm just cautious of misplaced regulation that does more harm than good - it needs to be directed at the right places.

    You mention culture - I think that's an important aspect of what needs to happen. Granted, that's easier said than done.

    It is from a British perspective and it is rather long, but this is worth a read: http://www.jesse4hereford.com/pdf/Ca...m_28122011.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    That depends on how one defines equality of life. That said...

    + Europeans are generally healthier than Americans.
    + Europeans live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
    + Europeans enjoy socialized healthcare. Being poor in America can kill you.
    + Central and northern European nations score higher on tests.
    + Wealth distribution between the classes is more balanced in Europe.
    + Europe is more progressive when it comes to legal processing and recognizing human rights and freedoms.
    + Higher income (overall -- Poor Greece).

    I guess a negative would be that European homes are usually smaller, which would be kinda annoying. Not a big deal when compared to the positives though. At least you guys have tons of cool history. :Y
    The successful countries of the EU have various forms of capitalism. Some have more levels of state-intervention than others - there are no wholly free-market economies in the EU (and neither is the US). The grouping of the whole of the EU, as opposed to looking at the individual countries, is what I am objecting to. For example, the Eastern European countries, who were heavily influenced by socialism, are far poorer than the capitalist Western and Northern European countries.

    Capitalism is the best economic system we have at the moment - we just need to get it right.


  13. #5263
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    capitalism isn't the best. you have to combine all forms of systems to achieve the best. i would say that capitalism should get an edge in any system but not by far.

  14. #5264
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,031 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    capitalism isn't the best. you have to combine all forms of systems to achieve the best. i would say that capitalism should get an edge in any system but not by far.
    Yes, it is. History, and the status of countries in the world today, prove this over and over. You seem to have a specific idea of what capitalism is (as seen in your assertion that European countries such as the UK are not capitalist), but it does not correspond with reality.

  15. #5265
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    Yes, it is. History, and the status of countries in the world today, prove this over and over. You seem to have a specific idea of what capitalism is (as seen in your assertion that European countries such as the UK are not capitalist), but it does not correspond with reality.
    no my point was that they're not nearly as capitalist as the US. however, you seem to think that there's a pure capitalist society out there, it would never work. capitalism to the point US is already doesn't work. because it can be manipulated. just like the other economic systems such as socialism/communism.

  16. #5266
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,409
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,627 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    no my point was that they're not nearly as capitalist as the US. however, you seem to think that there's a pure capitalist society out there, it would never work. capitalism to the point US is already doesn't work. because it can be manipulated. just like the other economic systems such as socialism/communism.
    I think you're misconstruing capitalism with free-market principles. Capitalist economies have always been manipulated and thus, cannot be construed as free-market economies. What countries like the United States, Great Britain and every other major economy in the world have in common is that they are all managed-market economies. There are no free-market principles in play with any of these economies.

    To have an example of what a free-market capitalist economy was like, you'd have to go back to 19th century United States. This was a time that saw the United States turn into an economic superpower. By the turn of the 20th century, the United States was the single largest economy by far and bar none. The reason for this was because there were no manipulations from individuals or entities like central banks that tinkered with interest rates, the money supply or government policies.

    Now, one can argue that these times saw some of the biggest market fluctuations with booms and busts and that these were unstable and volatile times, but, that was just the free market getting rid of the dead weight and rewarding those that had the foresight not to engage in mal-investment or reckless behavior. Of course, the elephant in the room which is not being talked about is actually the market's ability to correct itself regardless of what humans do to manipulate. The market will always correct itself and that has no bearing on whether or not it's free.

  17. #5267
    Superior Member
    GreatSpaceKoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    923
    Rep Power
    17
    Points
    11,562 (0 Banked)
    I don't believe in redistribution of wealth. I may not like the high salaries of CEOs... but I would never force them to lower theirs or make ours higher.

  18. #5268
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    that wouldn't be redistribution of wealth. that would probably be "fair" lol. really i have no idea why the CEOs make so much when their minions do all the work...i mean, "all the work". all they do is show up at meetings and listen to other people's great ideas.

  19. #5269
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,767
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    84,678 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    that wouldn't be redistribution of wealth. that would probably be "fair" lol. really i have no idea why the CEOs make so much when their minions do all the work...i mean, "all the work". all they do is show up at meetings and listen to other people's great ideas.
    It's basically the form of a legal pyramid scheme but they worked to get into that position. They at least got their hands dirty to get where they are, metaphorical speaking. But I don't understand that model. I think their salaries are ridiculous but the company pays them so I have no argument. They don't owe anyone anything regardless of how much money they make.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  20. Likes Omar likes this post
  21. #5270
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    of course they don't owe anyone anything, i don't believe in redistributing wealth. but what i do believe is in fair wages.

  22. #5271
    Superior Member
    GreatSpaceKoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    923
    Rep Power
    17
    Points
    11,562 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    that wouldn't be redistribution of wealth. that would probably be "fair" lol. really i have no idea why the CEOs make so much when their minions do all the work...i mean, "all the work". all they do is show up at meetings and listen to other people's great ideas.
    "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. What's fair to one person can be deemed unfair by another.

    As for CEOs....they are the ones that steer the direction of a company. They are the captain of the ship. The CEO is the one that has to make the tough decisions that others don't want to make. That could be to layoff people in order to keep the company afloat and/or maintain profitability. He may decide to sell off a division or spin it off into it's own company. He also is the one that okays expansion and new hiring. At the end of the day it's THEIR company and they can do as they please. And if that means paying a CEO millions of dollars in salary and bonuses....so be it. Their company, they should be able to pay out how they see fit.

    One of the tools that is used to try and solve inequality is the minimum wage. Although a minimum wage is nice, I'm patently against it. There are laws on the books against companies doing price fixing. That is... the collusion of companies of a similar product or service to keep the price artificially higher for the consumer than a competitive market would otherwise produce.

    Minimum wage is the same concept. It's wage fixing. That is... keeping wages artificially higher than a competitive market would otherwise produce. And the collusion is between workers and lawmakers. That's a hypocritical government to say it's OK to collude to force artificially higher costs on a business..... while it's NOT OK for businesses to collude to force artificially higher prices on the consumer.

  23. #5272
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,514
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    107,661 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    i'm not talking about minimum wage. i'm talking about corporate greed that is driving this nation down.

  24. #5273
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,695
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,263 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by PS4freak View Post
    It's basically the form of a legal pyramid scheme but they worked to get into that position. They at least got their hands dirty to get where they are, metaphorical speaking. But I don't understand that model. I think their salaries are ridiculous but the company pays them so I have no argument. They don't owe anyone anything regardless of how much money they make.
    You know, I find it interesting when the argument for a more fair distribution of money comes into play people then often counter with, "No one owes them anything." Okay, not only is it a strawman response, but it also shows a disgusting world view many people have. Society a large is ultimately delusional by the concepts of ownership and what is deserved.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    Minimum wage is the same concept. It's wage fixing. That is... keeping wages artificially higher than a competitive market would otherwise produce.
    Minimum wage is a security to prevent markets and corporations from taking advantage of the working class. In many circumstances working places opt to then pay the legal minimum wage. They would go lower if they were allowed. That is very concerning.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    And the collusion is between workers and lawmakers. That's a hypocritical government to say it's OK to collude to force artificially higher costs on a business.....
    Businesses aren't people. Businesses shouldn't get represented by the Government. Businesses don't deserve rights that supersede that of human beings. It's not hypocritical for a representative body to work for the people. The people do the work. The people pay the taxes. The people form the society. Businesses are only constructs in which money and resources flow in certain ways. They aren't special entities that deserve to have society bend for their benefit.

    If there was any bias I'd sure as hell rather have the Government take the side of the people over some millionaire/billionaire CEOs and high-wage makers.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  25. #5274
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,767
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    84,678 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    You know, I find it interesting when the argument for a more fair distribution of money comes into play people then often counter with, "No one owes them anything." Okay, not only is it a strawman response, but it also shows a disgusting world view many people have. Society a large is ultimately delusional by the concepts of ownership and what is deserved.



    Minimum wage is a security to prevent markets and corporations from taking advantage of the working class. In many circumstances working places opt to then pay the legal minimum wage. They would go lower if they were allowed. That is very concerning.



    Businesses aren't people. Businesses shouldn't get represented by the Government. Businesses don't deserve rights that supersede that of human beings. It's not hypocritical for a representative body to work for the people. The people do the work. The people pay the taxes. The people form the society. Businesses are only constructs in which money and resources flow in certain ways. They aren't special entities that deserve to have society bend for their benefit.

    If there was any bias I'd sure as hell rather have the Government take the side of the people over some millionaire/billionaire CEOs and high-wage makers.
    Not sure what you are saying about my statement. But would I like to live in a world where.everyone lives in a comfortable median, yes. But I don't think because these people make absurd amount of should they share their earning to others. I think the corporate structure is ludicrous. But I also think the athlete pay scale is ludicrous as well but hey they are making the money for their efforts. Not having a go at you just not sure if you are arguing against, for, or indifferent in my argument. Lol sorry if that is confusing. I've been drinking. Lol




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  26. #5275
    Superior Member
    GreatSpaceKoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    923
    Rep Power
    17
    Points
    11,562 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerevar View Post
    Minimum wage is a security to prevent markets and corporations from taking advantage of the working class. In many circumstances working places opt to then pay the legal minimum wage. They would go lower if they were allowed. That is very concerning.



    Businesses aren't people. Businesses shouldn't get represented by the Government. Businesses don't deserve rights that supersede that of human beings. It's not hypocritical for a representative body to work for the people. The people do the work. The people pay the taxes. The people form the society. Businesses are only constructs in which money and resources flow in certain ways. They aren't special entities that deserve to have society bend for their benefit.

    If there was any bias I'd sure as hell rather have the Government take the side of the people over some millionaire/billionaire CEOs and high-wage makers.
    They would go as low or as high as the market dictates. That's why when the economy was doing great, it created a labor shortage. It became a "worker's market". Workers were able to demand higher wages because the companies were desperate for workers and had to compete with other companies for them. We had fast food places that were offering $12-$15 STARTING pay and a hire bonus because they couldn't find enough people to work for them at the wages they were offering before.

    But when the market goes the other way, then it's a "employer's market" and the wages go lower based on a worker SURPLUS in the market. That's the yin and yang of a free market.

    As for businesses aren't people? Of course they are. They need people with capital to start them and people to run them. They aren't owned or run by themselves. They wouldn't exist without people behind them.

    Anything detrimental you do to a business hurts PEOPLE. Say you call for a boycott of a corporation that makes cars. The person or persons who own the company are hurt. Their workers are then hurt if they are laid off or hours reduced. Then OTHER companies are hurt because you reduce your buying of parts from them...and THEIR owners are hurt and their workers are hurt.

    So a company is a person by extension of the fact that anything beneficial or detrimental that happens to it DIRECTLY affects a person or persons associated with it.

    When I was a kid, I used to shoplift videogames from Sears from time to time. I had been taught in public school the liberal mindset that corporations were faceless entities that I should not sympathize or care about. They were to be demonized at every chance. I was always told they are "greedy".

    So because of this..... I had no problems with my conscience with stealing from a big company like Sears cuz the company can "afford" to take the loss. That they are so greedy that they can handle losing product at my hands. I was taught the mindset that as long as I wasn't stealing from a person (personal), but instead stealing from a rich faceless entity (non-personal)... that it's not so bad. The mindset that it's okay that Robin Hood is a thief, as long as he's stealing from rich people and handing it to poor people. The ol' "the end justifies the means" defense.

    The reality is that if everybody decides to steal from Sears, the loss is gonna hit a PERSON.... be it through loss to shareholders, layoffs, increased prices to the public to cover losses or taxpayers who have to cover the loss due to a tax write off.

    So if a company could own and run itself and involved no employees..... maybe I wouldn't give it the rights of a person. But as long as it is owned by a person and has persons working for it.... I consider it a person by proxy. Because what you do to a company affects a person at the end of the day.
    Last edited by GreatSpaceKoaster; 07-19-2014 at 09:05.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.