The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Your post is quoting things I said but attributing them to Ordo.
Fix it.

Pretty damn demanding for someone on the internet. Thought we were banning bossy?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
And kindly stop the denigrating. "Underwater basket weaving"? Really?

I call it as I see it.
Sounds like I struck the never about College Degrees.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
My spouse has Cisco certification; he works as a Senior Software Engineer. His job was OUTSOURCED and he was unemployed for over a year. Explain how that happened....

Gha. never mind.

Well, which is it. Does he have Cisco Network Certs, or is her a Software Engineer.
Cisco deals with the Network portion of IT. Software is something else.

And I know and deal with the "out sourced" Network guys in India. Not only is there a huge language barrier, but they typically suck. This is due to Boot camp style companies going over to India, as they surge with Call Centers and Data Centers, and offer people a 2-3 week course on how to pass the Cisco tests. They do this, and are basically useless as they have no experience in the field. They are a paper tiger.

I personally hold 5 different Cisco Certs, Routers, Firewalls, Switches and Voice. Plus, certs in telecom as well.
Can't seem to go a week without 5 calls from recruiters trying to poach me.

If I can get these calls, there is no reason why anyone else can't.

My friend was a head java programer at cisco. became unemployeed and after a tear of looking had to move to another country to find a job.


a reply to: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Greven

I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the world.

Well then, you best educate me.

originally posted by: Greven
Some of the hardest workers I ever met worked multiple jobs for near minimum wage. Some of them had degrees, others never had the chance due to life's circumstances.

That sounds terrible.
Now how is this my plight?
Hard work meaning what exactly? Do they swing an axe all day, for 14 hrs?
Or do they??????? Please define this.

I too work 2 jobs. Should my wants therefore be funded by tax dollars?

originally posted by: Greven
Ah. This appears to explain much. Did you get to your position in life without a single bit of help from anyone?

Help from an individual is somehow equal to a tax payer funded handout??
Next you will pitch it is my Christian duty to do so.
How did I get here? I worked my ass off. I studied on vacations, I sleep about 5 hours a night, instead of buying a newer car I put money towards testing books and equipment.
Not once did I get "help" from the Govt.
Everything that I have, I worked for and earned.

originally posted by: Greven
There is a vast correlation between knowing people that are doing well and doing well yourself.

You mean to think that if one is to be successful, they should probably cast aside all the other people on the Govt Handout, and surround themselves with successful people?
You don't say.
Or maybe, copy the actions of those that are successful?

Nah, I think they will do just fine, staying friends with those that are in the same boat, doing the same thing and then wondering why they are failing in life.

And the idea that I have received special help from the people I know? That is a falsehood. I didn't meet these people until I was in my late 20s. I already had a career and was making a comfortable living.

Stop making excuses and go be successful.
Or, continue to bitch and moan and see where that gets you (Not necessarily directed towards you)

originally posted by: Greven
I think you ought to read the Bible if you believe this is an accurate representation.

You're right. The 11th commandment is "Thou shall pay money to provide for your neighbor".

Please show me where in the bible it defines faith as having money stolen via the Govt, and given to someone else.

originally posted by: Greven
Matthew 19
21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. 23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" 26And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Can't seem to see where it states to have this done via force by the Govt.
This is on a volunteer basis.
And the whole idea behind this is not to worship stuff.
Man, even a backwater redneck like me and see that.

originally posted by: Greven
Incorrect - skill has no inherent worth in the job market. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by people with a tenuous grasp of economics. Again, businesses hire people that they need to function at close to the lowest cost to them that they can get away with.

Yes, the lowest cost, driven by the market.
And skill is what drives that. Otherwise the person with no skill would be doing my job.

originally posted by: Greven
If computer programmers all started to accept minimum wage in exchange for their skills, did their skills decline in value?

M-A-R-K-E-T value. If the pay was reduced, it would in turn show that the skill is not as coveted.

originally posted by: Greven
There may still be a shortage of computer programmers in the market, but if they all accept minimum wage... that's what they will be paid. It's very similar to the prisoner's dilemma; if everyone refused to work for less than $10/hr, that would be the de facto minimum wage. With significant unemployment, that would be hard to get everyone to support, though.

Well, then strike. Have all those making the low end strike. I would love to see how that pans out.

originally posted by: Greven
It's not scarcity or skill that leads to increased wages. Scarcity does, however, give workers more bargaining power. That is what leads to increased wages.

No, a skill in need is what drives the wage.

A person how is skilled in cleaning mops is not a highly sought after skill. It is a skill that can be picked up quickly and by most.

Computer Programming is a skill that takes time and is not obtainable by many.

Hoarding money while others starve is 'corrupt' and immoral. Paying people a living wage for a 40 hour work week is respectable and just good business. There is a cost to doing business that the executives and shareholders must accept. There seems to be a "keep it all" mentality in the business community today that does not include accounting for legitimate expenses and employee wages. Not all costs have to be recovered from the consumer. Payroll is a distribution of a portion of the profit earned by doing business.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Same can be said of your view too. What the point of freedom on a select few if everyone else are just "serfs"
Which is what will happen on the current trend

Really? Because I have stated this group has the right to obtain wealth, but this other group doesn't?
I'm thinking your allowing your bias to drive the disconnect.

originally posted by: crazyewok
What for a very few select family's to hold 90% of the land, wealth and power? Isnt that why you got rid of Britain and its Monarchy in the first place?

It was about the King controlling the actions of the colonies.

originally posted by: crazyewok
A Aristocracy doesn't necessarily have to have titles you know.

Duly noted.

originally posted by: crazyewok
What the difference between the UK Dukes and Barons and say the US Bushes, Roosevelts and Clinton's? Not a lot except the title "lord" in front of there names.

Well, those are people embedded in US politics that need to be bounced out of politics. But, they are free to run and stay there.
Again, your example is Govt running amok.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Hence why Im for deregulation and lower but firmer tax laws and equal enforcement of the few laws that remain coupled with a removal of Corporate power from political power.

I agree.
Remove the over reaching and bloated Govt, and you will remove the influence that Corporations have.

originally posted by: crazyewok
With complete cooperate rule it would be the other way round too.

No. Govt creates the laws, enforces the laws and interprets the laws.
Again, remove the corrupt Govt, return it to small and local, and this will push the Corps out.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Well seeing as we are both for deregulation of the markets I dont see why we are arguing?

Two reasons.
One, we are pushing toward similar goals, but differ on how to get there.
Two, we are both stubborn people that enjoy debating.
My offer still stands, if you ever venture to the US, hit me up. I will buy you lunch.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: diggindirt

So you would support suspending care of the elderly if they happen to have politicians in their family? To make a point about money???? How far into unethical and immoral behavior are you willing to go? Until the means justifies the end?
My question remains unanswered: Is that the way you wish to be treated?

Okay, you've made your point. Let's leave the care-workers out of it.

Let's just talk about the people washing dishes, cleaning toilets, changing sheets, dusting, mowing lawns, doing dry-cleaning, etc for others. The scenario I actually had in mind was a large hotel; I can tell you from experience that if the housekeepers aren't there - the management will scramble to try to get those rooms ready. And when you only have six 'bosses' they can't turn 720 rooms to provide for the next high-power convention arrivals in time. They NEED those housekeepers, but do not value them enough to make sure they (the workers) are healthy, safe, and regarded as PEOPLE and not fractions of percentage points on a stupid spread-sheet.

Okay? And even if we did go with the elder-care, or child-care workers - would the family members step up and do the care-giving? Or just hire some other stranger to care for the needs of their dependents?

But that's a whole other subject - farming out children and elders to strangers or high-schoolers rather than caring for them yourself is a big problem in this society also.

What exactly do you mean? I didn't bring the denial of care to the elderly up as a means to raise wages---you did.
"And if all those low-wage employees called in sick on the same day - whether Walmart or McDonalds (paid or unpaid - just call in sick) or hotel housekeepers or CNAs in the nursing homes that care for the elderly parents of the 'congressmen' - well -
it would make a HUGE statement.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com..."
You suggest unethical and immoral behavior as a means to your desired ends but when I point it out, you no longer want to discuss it.
How does that make you any different than the "greedy" you are railing against. In my book that actually goes far beyond "greedy" to inhumane and cruel.
So it is okay to lie to your employer if your lies improve your wages in the long run?
It is okay to cause hundreds of people discomfort and trouble that is not of their making when you want a raise and haven't the intestinal fortitude to ask for a raise person-to-person, face-to-face?
You have yet to explain to me how the government gained the right to tell me what my labor is worth.
I worked as a landscaper's helper. My worth was a lot less in that job than when I worked as a contract archaeologist, hundreds of dollars a week less in fact. That's because pulling weeds from a garden doesn't take a lot of training or skill whereas being able to read soil does take training and skills. I worked both jobs as contract labor, negotiating my wages because neither job was full time. And for a time, even those two jobs didn't provide the level of fiscal comfort I wanted for my family so I created a business of my own to supplement my income. Was it easy? Indeed not!
And for the record, I never "farmed out" my children or elders to strangers. My children learned the value of working for what they wanted out of life. From the time they were 12 years old they had jobs that provided them with a bit of extra spending money and a savings account for their dreams. Begging money from the government or using the force of government to make an employer pay them what they deemed themselves worth would never occur to them or to me.
I think you have confused parents and employers. As an employer I am not responsible for a worker being healthy. I have no control over that worker's health, what that worker eats or drinks, how much they exercise. I have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions and the government is well within its power to enforce those standards. As for "regarded as PEOPLE and not fractions of percentage points on a stupid spread-sheet.", that "stupid spead-sheet" represents whether or not those PEOPLE will be employed at all. Unlike government, the local hotel can't print up money to pay people for cleaning toilets. I am now seriously doubting a good bit of what you've posted about being a business owner if you consider a spread-sheet to be "stupid"---or perhaps I should say I doubt that you are a successful business owner. Perhaps learning the value and usage of a spread-sheet would increase your income.
My question remains: Is your suggestion of immoral and unethical behavior the way you want to be treated? It is really a very simple question yet you have failed to answer it. You bring up a suggestion to deny care to the elderly but then don't want to discuss it?
Look inside yourself and discover what is driving the anger you express---the desire for revenge by hurting innocent people to attain your goal of wanting more money. It seems that your desire is more of punishment than of empathy for the low-wage earner.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then he can either quit, handing his job over to someone else, or give away half his money.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Then he can either quit, handing his job over to someone else, or give away half his money.

And what happens to the company and everyone who works there? The product we manufacture is his proprietary creation. Additionally, how do you give away half of a private business and expect to retain your ability to direct its market strategy?

You have a rather short sighted approach to business.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Then he can either quit, handing his job over to someone else, or give away half his money.

And what happens to the company and everyone who works there? The product we manufacture is his proprietary creation. Additionally, how do you give away half of a private business and expect to retain your ability to direct its market strategy?

You have a rather short sighted approach to business.

Someone else who does not have as much money as him takes over. If the company is valuable and produces value, then the transfer should be quite smooth and the company would continue to make profits. Maybe even more so if the new CEO were to take a pay cut.

The problem is the economic system is a game of monopoly (played by 300,000,000 people nationally (I suppose im including babies)), and anyone who has played a game of monopoly knows it takes a lot of losers to make a winner. And sometimes the only thing left for the loser to do is knock over the board.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Someone else who does not have as much money as him takes over. If the company is valuable and produces value, then the transfer should be quite smooth and the company would continue to make profits. Maybe even more so if the new CEO were to take a pay cut.

So people should work for a couple of decades on developing a product, gain traction in the market and when they finally assemble a team that can challenge the majors in the industry you just give away half of the business to someone else? A huge reason we are where we are is because of his leadership. People want to work here because they know we are a winner. How does your rather juvenile way of running a business ensure that the company stays solvent?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Someone else who does not have as much money as him takes over. If the company is valuable and produces value, then the transfer should be quite smooth and the company would continue to make profits. Maybe even more so if the new CEO were to take a pay cut.

So people should work for a couple of decades on developing a product, gain traction in the market and when they finally assemble a team that can challenge the majors in the industry you just give away half of the business to someone else? A huge reason we are where we are is because of his leadership. People want to work here because they know we are a winner. How does your rather juvenile way of running a business ensure that the company stays solvent?

My statement will be; The goal of a nation should not be to create a few winners, the goal of the nation should be to create the fewest losers. Under the current system, there are far too many losers. What needs to change is, the amount of money the small percentage of winners have.

There is a finite amount of money in existence at any given time. If fewer people have the most of it, that leaves not much for the majority of living humans. This is not even unfair, it is just stupid. And when new money is created and put into the system, those who have the most already, get their hands on it first.

Socieo political economic revolution has occurred all throughout history for this same problem, and is occurring around the world now and over the past few years more frequently.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My statement will be; The goal of a nation should not be to create a few winners, the goal of the nation should be to create the fewest losers. Under the current system, there are far too many losers. What needs to change is, the amount of money the small percentage of winners have.

And I just told you that where we work we all feel like we are on the winning side. It is not like we are underpaid.

There is a finite amount of money in existence at any given time. If fewer people have the most of it, that leaves not much for the majority of living humans. This is not even unfair, it is just stupid. And when new money is created and put into the system, those who have the most already, get their hands on it first.

You have a simplistic view of monetization. A finite money supply does not prevent you from creating more wealth than there is currency.

I honestly am astounded in some of these threads at the inability of people to grasp even basic macroeconomics when they are pontificating on how the world's or a nation's economy should be dictated. And the use of the word dictated was very intentional.

The problem isnt so much that the minimum wage earners do not earn enough. The problem is that their wages are being subsidized by taxdollars in some way shape or form, so that they can rest up to be fit for work and have someplace to make themselves representable for work.

Therefore, by extension, taxdollars subsidize the profits of the companies that rely on low income workers. I assume most of these companies are publicly traded companies. Because of this fact, the average taxpayer is forced to hold stock in these companies so that he does not incur a loss.

How widespread is stockownership in America with regard to the companies that employ workers whom get extensive government support? Are those stocks held by a few? I was under the impression that stock ownership is widespread in America and that the fedora is all the rage among Americans. Is any of this still true? Do Americans get the taxdollars dumped on companies whom pay wages their workers can not support themselves with, get those taxdollars back in the form of corporate profit through the shares they hold?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


And I just told you that where we work we all feel like we are on the winning side. It is not like we are underpaid.

Surely you will agree that 'where you work' is not a complete representation of 'poverty/welfare/class clashing' that is occurring in the entirety of the nation (and world)? It is of no surprise to me that there are stable and functioning systems within the nation, it is a surprise to me that because your stable and functioning system is stable and function you think that there are no problems or issues with the nation and system as a whole, and else where, that is not your microcosm.

You have a simplistic view of monetization. A finite money supply does not prevent you from creating more wealth than there is currency.

Is what you are speaking of done through debt of others and inflation of the currency? Regardless of what you are saying with those statements, it holds true that those with little amounts of money will inherently have a harder time with greater risk and lesser chances of gaining more money and wealth, then those with a massive amount of money and wealth.

Are you implying that every single person living in the nation as of now, (lets say above the age of 18) can create more wealth (im assuming you mean by investing and/or working), and work, and have a stable means of living?

What is the first thing you would tell all the people who are currently living paycheck to paycheck, and all the people who are in a lot of debt with no savings, and all the people that utilize welfare of one form or another (for this example, not the form of corporate welfare) they should do immediately to start creating more wealth for themselves? There is something all of them can do to start the path of success right?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The owner of the company I work for is a billionaire. All of us that work there have plenty of anecdotal stories about how he has helped one person or another or various charitable organizations but you never hear it from him.

You're a very lucky person to work for someone like that, and yes these types of folks do exist. My father ran a corporation, and when business turned bad, he went years without pay so his employees could be paid. However, this is rare in today's world, and if you have such a job you are very lucky.

Lets just say that by contrast, I recently left a place where the multimillionaire employers wife told the employees that if they wanted to use the bathroom they had to bring their own toilet paper with them...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Surely you will agree that 'where you work' is not a complete representation of 'poverty/welfare/class clashing' that is occurring in the entirety of the nation (and world)? It is of no surprise to me that there are stable and functioning systems within the nation, it is a surprise to me that because your stable and functioning system is stable and function you think that there are no problems or issues with the nation and system as a whole, and else where, that is not your microcosm.

I am surprised you are even asking this because the petulant and confiscatory reallocation scenario you advocate for my company's resources would destroy said company.

Is what you are speaking of done through debt of others and inflation of the currency?

No, I am talking about actual wealth creation through channels that do not include what central banks control in the currency sphere.

Regardless of what you are saying with those statements, it holds true that those with little amounts of money will inherently have a harder time with greater risk and lesser chances of gaining more money and wealth, then those with a massive amount of money and wealth.

Yeah, and? If I sat here and bemoaned every perceived 'injustice' I would never leave the house because life is stacked against you. When I entered the work place I had nothing, now I have more than nothing. I am very much ahead of the game.

Are you implying that every single person living in the nation as of now, (lets say above the age of 18) can create more wealth (im assuming you mean by investing and/or working), and work, and have a stable means of living?

Within reason, yes. There are some people who will never be able to be fully productive members of society due to mitigating circumstances and I recognize and appreciate that. Everyone else, however, can make something of themselves. Believe it or not it is still very much possible in this country. You need to be determined and structured but the parameters exist to enable people to increase their trajectory. Your means do not need to be static.

What is the first thing you would tell all the people who are currently living paycheck to paycheck, and all the people who are in a lot of debt with no savings, and all the people that utilize welfare of one form or another (for this example, not the form of corporate welfare) they should do immediately to start creating more wealth for themselves? There is something all of them can do to start the path of success right?

I would tell them the same thing I told myself. There is something (and probably more than one something) that you can excel at. Find it and drive to be the best.

If you want to be a doctor, be the best doctor.

If you want to be a janitor, be the best janitor.

If you want to be an musician, be the best musician.

When you have that approach people recognize your commitment and your life will begin to change.

Greed is destroying the planet, plain and simple. Wages are not fair for the poor and middle class because the 1% write the laws and lobby for more ways to exploit the system. The actual distribution of wealth is so one sided its just ridiculous and I have a great job and make good money but I see how messed up the system is.

People on min wage are being stretched more every year and are being outpaced by inflation and all while crony capitalism has let the banker steal trillions. The biggest welfare cases on the planet is the top 1% and their fat hand is emptying the cookie jar. People at the bottom have zero lobbyists or fat cat lawyers to represent them, that's what the politicians were supposed to do. The simple fact the poor have to be given government table scraps to barely survive tells me I am right about this system being totally unfair to the people who cant buy their way into more wealth.

In response to those stating “well this isn't a career” or “go get more training and get a better job”, you're obviously inexperienced in the ways of the world, so let me enlighten you...

If you have been in a field for more then 10 years, then you are laid off, you will have even greater problems with getting a job. Employers tend to look at you as someone that will cost them a lot more then someone with little to no experience. The more “specialized” your experience, the smaller your potential pool of employers becomes, and the older you get the more they figure you will cost not only in experience but also in time off and healthcare.

So while the rich feel they should be “rewarded” for their success, they feel that their successful employees should be punished to keep the costs down.

originally posted by: defcon5
You're a very lucky person to work for someone like that, and yes these types of folks do exist.

Thank you. I do however think luck is what you make of it. I was recruited by this company because they knew my reputation and paid to take me away from another company and frankly I was flattered that they did.

My father ran a corporation, and when business turned bad, he went years without pay so his employees could be paid. However, this is rare in today's world, and if you have such a job you are very lucky.

When I had my own businesses I also had similar runs but that is where the perseverance paid off and I ended up doing quite well in the long run. I always felt is was because if we could get through the rough parts we would be much stronger and everything would work out.

Lets just say that by contrast, I recently left a place where the multimillionaire employers wife told the employees that if they wanted to use the bathroom they had to bring their own toilet paper with them...

A call to OSHA probably would have been in order at that point.