Minimum Wage Stuck in the 1950s

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Obama cabinet appointees are typically middle to upper class persons who feel that they are unfairly taxed and wish to have the burden shouldered by the segment of society that take risks and make sacrifices in order to improve their own situation without waiting for the chance to suck at the public teat.

Unfotunately, as a result, they often "forget to" pay their taxes or find ways of getting around paying them, just like the Wal-Marts and Bank of Americas that they own or manage forget to do. Oops!

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I could give a shit about the person that thinks they're entitled to the earnings gained by the hard work of the above mentioned people.

I find it hilarious that so many millionaires think they earned their money entirely by themselves.

80% of millionaires in the US are "first generation" wealthy. Source: "The Millionaire Next Door".

And of those, what percentage do you think have never benefitted from government infrastructure to create that wealth? First generation or not, as far as I can see, they all have and will continue to do so.

A lot of folks think the 5% at the top is somehow unfairly paying taxes above the 95%. I'd say that the 5% would NEVER be where they are if it wasn't for the 95% supporting them getting where they are.

I suppose there are exceptions, but I can't really think of any.

No one would dispute that, however, you're making it sound like the vast majority of Federal Spending is spent on infrastructure. It's not. The overwhelming amount of spending is on HHS, Treasury, Social Security and Defense. In fact, HHS and Social Security outpace Defense by two-to-one. That's not infrastructure.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Not necessarily, but I do think they have rights as workers and their employers have many obligations to treat them accordingly, and some of them just so happen to come from economic examples - compensate your workers fairly, and they will be happier - thus they will produce more.

Your tagline is an example of the mentality that exists among power enthusiasts. Find a way to exploit your workers any way that you can, and you will reap the rewards. That is a mentality I am opposed to. I think it is sick, an expression of sadomasochistic business practices (you know, the kind that Capitalism and Freedom wish to avoid - i.e. "No man is to be used as a means to the ends of another man.")

>" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My tagline is a comment on how unnecessary it is to use force. Nothing more. My opinion on why force is unnecessary would get me flamed by those that live the victim role in life; expecting to be cared for cradle to grave and making someone else responsible for everything about their lives.

What rights do you think workers need that they don't have now?

"Compensate them fairly." What do you mean by that? IMO, if an employer has an opening, a person agrees to take it, and the wage is agreed upon - that is fair.

If a wage is too low for the market, the employer will not be able to attract the people they need and either they will have to offer more, or close down.

It's called free market forces and they are amazingly good at ensuring people end up with what they deserve and with what they've earned.

I never thought of paying or charging what the market will bear as exploitative; not from either end or by any party. I do understand the victim mentality of a person crying out whenever they do not get what they personally desire; despite the fact that they are quite simply living out the consequences of the choices they have made.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

>Simple enough, and nothing unfair about it.

Yea huh. Theres nothing unfair about convincing people to love their servitude. Or is that just noise?

It's a tagline. A bit tongue in cheek, a bit of truth, intended to get a grin while taking a little poke at how adrift so many people are on the awareness scale.

Not intended to define me as a person, but you are free to attempt to read my personality from it if you like.

Wonder what your take would be on my old one -

Don of Borg - Cool, calm, collective.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[chasteh 0]

"Nuhh uhhh!! You did it too!!! Nya nya nya nya nya!!!" - futuredivot

As if "You did it too" said that conservatives werent so guilty. Oops!

[chasteh 0]

>Did you really just compare the integrity of modern US immigration law to the mid-20th century law of minority regimes in India and Africa ?
...and in the same reply suggest that others should have a "more realistic world viewpoint" ?

No. He was showing how the standard of laws dictating between "right" and "wrong" is violated even in a view that turtlespeed would endorse. For example, it was illegal for the blacks to protest during the civil rights movement, but at the same time few people today would consider it "wrong." Thus, a law doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "wrong," it just gives the criterion by which law enforcement officials and nationalists judge the actions of other people.

>On a sidenote:
Right and wrong are points of view, much like good and evil.

Actually, those are all ethical statements, i.e. attempts at "moral correctness." Right and wrong are evaluative terms compared to ethical criterion. The point of view comes in when you either decline or accept a given set of ethical standards. (I.E: Standards that are laid out in: Ethical egoism, social contract theory, contractarianism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and so on.)

>The fact that they were (or are) written into law means that somebody, at some time, believed it to be "right", even if it wasn't you.

They believed it to be right, but that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong." Remember, ethics is a field in which thinkers attempt to find a set of normative criterion as "correct." Moral correctness is the goal. Unfortunately, this hasn't been shown, even for social contract theorists, which apparently is what you are here.

[chasteh 0]

>My tagline is a comment on how unnecessary it is to use force. Nothing more. My opinion on why force is unnecessary would get me flamed by those that live the victim role in life; expecting to be cared for cradle to grave and making someone else responsible for everything about their lives.

Actually, the "liberals" you conservatives despise so much say the same thing. They don't want government intervention in their lives. It is a misconception to consider those on the left to be lazy, unproductive, and self-labeled "victims." Just like it is a misconception to say that all conservatives are religious flag-loving fanatics. There are examples of persons who are dependent on social processes (taxation, welfare) in both the republican and democratic parties. Your criterion are examples of how you can both evaluate "lefties" and republicans, alike. There are plenty of people on both sides who adore the thought of having a police-state in place of democracy.

>What rights do you think workers need that they don't have now?

"Rights" might be kind of hard to justify. I would actually prefer the utopian vision of a free-market society that you conservatives endorse. Unfortunately, you often get off track and start abusing your workers, firing them at will, and being guilty of performing human rights violations. Is this not another reason why progressives push so hard to keep you business owners in check? If it came down to workers rights, I think it would mean being consistent with the notion that "no man is to be exploited for the purposes of another man, and that every man exists as an end in himself." It is hard to do this when the business owner is in a crunch (always) and uses cost-cutting methods to preserve his profit margin.

>"Compensate them fairly." What do you mean by that? IMO, if an employer has an opening, a person agrees to take it, and the wage is agreed upon - that is fair.

When, in history, has the wage been agreed upon? Think underemployment: People are very willing to take jobs that they are overqualified to perform, should the situation arise. (It does... often)

>If a wage is too low for the market, the employer will not be able to attract the people they need and either they will have to offer more, or close down.

That most definitely isn't true today. People are thankful that at the very least they receive a paycheck, and are willing to sacrifice their own pay standards to simply be able to pay bills. Thus, the employer is still able to attract the people they need while not compensating them for what they are worth. It is called underemployment, and the U.S. is quite popular for it.


>It's called free market forces and they are amazingly good at ensuring people end up with what they deserve and with what they've earned.

What they deserve? Who determines that?
Why, historically, have they been so bad at it? When the textile worker spends his entire life to make a few hundred thousand in his lifetime, at what point does it become acceptable for say a cocaine dealer to make more in a few hours? Do they "deserve" what they have made at that point? One person is exploited, the other exploits a niche in the market. One works far beyond the efforts of the other. That doesn't sound fair at all.

>I never thought of paying or charging what the market will bear as exploitative; not from either end or by any party. I do understand the victim mentality of a person crying out whenever they do not get what they personally desire; despite the fact that they are quite simply living out the consequences of the choices they have made.

That statement is LOADED with assumptions, starting with a person's simply living out the consequences of the choices that they have made. You might want to show, here, how a person's poverty is a result of their own choices, or that in every case of wealth creation, how their wealth is strictly a result of their own choices. That one is gonna be tough. Wait a minute, we have already been arguing this in an other thread, right? Wealthy persons and their businesses are both highly dependent on public infrastructure, thus they haven't simply earned their wealth on the basis or their own efforts and entirely on their own choices. So if it is not correct to say that the wealthy are such because of their own decisions, then we can't quite say that the poor are poor strictly by their own decisions, either.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Actually, the "liberals" you conservatives despise so much say the same thing. They don't want government intervention in their lives. It is a misconception to consider those on the left to be lazy, unproductive, and self-labeled "victims." Just like it is a misconception to say that all conservatives are religious flag-loving fanatics. There are examples of persons who are dependent on social processes (taxation, welfare) in both the republican and democratic parties. Your criterion are examples of how you can both evaluate "lefties" and republicans, alike.

Unfortunately, you often get off track and start abusing your workers, firing them at will, and being guilty of performing human rights violations.

It is hard to do this when the business owner is in a crunch (always) and uses cost-cutting methods to preserve his profit margin.

What they deserve? Who determines that?
That statement is LOADED with assumptions, starting with a person's simply living out the consequences of the choices that they have made. You might want to show, here, how a person's poverty is a result of their own choices, or that in every case of wealth creation, how their wealth is strictly a result of their own choices. That one is gonna be tough.

I do not, and did not slot liberals or conservatives into anything I said. You are doing that. Those labels are rather infantile in my opinion; a form of groupspeak (or mobspeak) for those that think and act divisively.

I don't think any political faction has the market cornered on laziness or productiveness.

I do not have any workers to abuse or fire.

So you think when a business is in a crunch they should not cut costs? Do you think they should just bleed away their capital until they go under? In honor of their employees of course.

Tell me what economic model would call for an employer to pay more than they need to. What kind of voodoo world would it be if an employer paid someone $30 per hour when they could get someone to do the job just fine for $20 per hour?

Just like any other asset; a person's labor is worth what they can get for it - no more. That appears to be in direct contradiction to most of what you posted. So you tell me, what do you think is a better formula for determining the worth of a person's labor?

Everyone gets the life they chose by virtue of all the little decisions they make along the way. They may not be able to predict the consequences, but that in no way makes them any less responsible for their choices. There is no perfect path, and no perfectly predictable path, but every person sets their own path in itty-bitty course changes caused by all the itty-bitty as well as the really big decisions we make every day.

To deny that means a person hands over responsibility for their life's path to other people; which is unfortunately how a lot of people behave. They do not want to own who they are, where they are, how they live, etc. In effect they do own it even in the face of their superficial denial, but that little nugget of reality is too much to bear.

My utopia is where everyone takes ownership of their life, the parts they claim not to like as well as the parts they do like; instead of taking credit for what they've acheived while placing blame elsewhere for everything they percieve to have failed.

But I digress; I am truly interested in how you would determine the value of someone's labor if it is not what they could get for it on the open market.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[dks13827 3]

Quote

if you pay peanuts you get...

Quote

Are you better off than you were 40 years ago? Not if you're a minimum-wage worker.

It would take $9.92 today to match the buying power of the minimum wage at its peak in 1968, the year Martin Luther King died fighting for living wages for sanitation workers.

In today's dollars, the 1968 hourly minimum wage adds up to $20,634 a year working full time. The new federal minimum wage of $7.25 comes to just $15,080. That's $ 5,554 in lost wages.

"It is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis ... getting part-time income," King told workers in Memphis, Tenn., days before his murder. King said, "We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life."

Imagine what King would say today.

The minimum wage is stuck in the 1950s. With the raise, the minimum wage is higher than 1950's inflation-adjusted $6.71, but lower than the 1956 minimum wage of $7.93 in today's dollars.

The long-term fall in worker buying power is one reason we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The federal minimum wage was not enacted during good times, but during the extraordinarily hard times of the Great Depression. When the minimum wage became law in 1938, one out of five workers was unemployed and job creation was crucial.

President Franklin Roosevelt called the minimum wage "an essential part of economic recovery." Roosevelt said, millions of workers "receive pay so low that they have little buying power. Aside from the undoubted fact that they thereby suffer great human hardship, they are unable to buy adequate food and shelter, to maintain health or to buy their share of manufactured goods."

Roosevelt said, "The increase of national purchasing power (is) an underlying necessity of the day." And so it is today.

Camille Caramor, owner of a Louisiana Christmas tree farm and paralegal service, says, "A minimum wage increase could be the most important factor in powering our economy out of the recession."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/24-13

You know zero about economics. Jobs pay about what they are worth. You will say,, who says ??
Figure it out,, then you will understand.

[chasteh 0]

>Those labels are rather infantile in my opinion; a form of groupspeak (or mobspeak) for those that think and act divisively.

Uh huh. And what do you think of people who do not support the free-market structure you endorse? There is no chance that you label people based on their view of a free-market? Interesting. You might be the first free-market guy on the planet who has done this. "Just don't touch my private property, don't tax me, and don't impose laws on me. Thats all I want." How many politicians would we have left? That sounds like divisive thinking hidden behind: "All I want is X, Y, and Z." What would you think of a socialist touching your property, then?

>I don't think any political faction has the market cornered on laziness or productiveness.

You are a free-marketeer, but you have no position on welfare? You have no position that says the person who owns property is doing more for society than others? Interesting. You are the first apparently.

>So you think when a business is in a crunch they should not cut costs? Do you think they should just bleed away their capital until they go under? In honor of their employees of course.

Maybe. My goal isn't to kill the business. My goal is to make sure those business owners don't have room to search for methods to exploit their workers and treat them unfairly. You know, like the little children who work day and night in those sweatshops to build your Nike shoes, or the Chinese workers who do the same to ship goods to Wal-Mart to preserve their pricing structure. Businesses can be a great thing for society, just not when they resort to abusing their workers so they can "build wealth," whatever that means.

>Tell me what economic model would call for an employer to pay more than they need to. What kind of voodoo world would it be if an employer paid someone $30 per hour when they could get someone to do the job just fine for $20 per hour?

Sure, it would hurt their business. At the same time, I don't think that gives them the right to say run a sweat shop. (Ever) I don't think that gives them a right (ever) to own slaves. Fuck that.

>Just like any other asset; a person's labor is worth what they can get for it - no more. That appears to be in direct contradiction to most of what you posted.

You are stuck evaluating the productivity of a person in terms of the monetary gain they can get from it. I can think of several Engineers who aren't employed as engineers and cannot obtain those jobs. As a worker, they are capable of far more than what they currently produce. They are not employed because there isn't anyone who can "use" their services to earn profit. Imagine if we all produced for the purposes of productivity again, and the monetary system actually were used to trade credits between people who actually earned their money. Salespeople would be extinct, and productivity wouldn't be dependent on profit motives. I think it is obscene to wait around for a made-up system to come around to be productive. Society should be smaller, and people not exploited for the profit of a nother. That there might even make me more conservative than you.

>So you tell me, what do you think is a better formula for determining the worth of a person's labor?

Not profit. Fuck your defense of wealth-building. I think there are better ways for society to work. It may be a bit Utopian. So is free-market liberalism.

>Everyone gets the life they chose by virtue of all the little decisions they make along the way.

Sure sure. Well mostly. I didn't chose where I was born or who my parents were. It turns out I was pretty lucky, I think. You probably were too.

>They may not be able to predict the consequences, but that in no way makes them any less responsible for their choices. There is no perfect path, and no perfectly predictable path, but every person sets their own path in itty-bitty course changes caused by all the itty-bitty as well as the really big decisions we make every day.

Yes and no. See above. Of course, we have a big impact in our own decision-making. So does the rest of the world.

>To deny that means a person hands over responsibility for their life's path to other people; which is unfortunately how a lot of people behave.

Not necessarily. You can't realistically say your life's path has been a result of your own decisions. Sorry. (Throws apple at 6 year old - Uh oh. I created a monster!)

>They do not want to own who they are, where they are, how they live, etc. In effect they do own it even in the face of their superficial denial, but that little nugget of reality is too much to bear.

Youch. Take that, Indish child who is too stupid to get into Engineering school like all his other school chums! Looks like you'll be stuck going to an American Ivy-League school and become a doctor instead. Loser.

>My utopia is where everyone takes ownership of their life, the parts they claim not to like as well as the parts they do like; instead of taking credit for what they've acheived while placing blame elsewhere for everything they percieve to have failed.

That seems pretty fair. You can't blame other people for everything (or most even) of your problems. However, there are things that are out of your control. Life will slap you hard at some point, and freqeuently - this is the case with my mother.

>But I digress; I am truly interested in how you would determine the value of someone's labor if it is not what they could get for it on the open market.

I'm not sure. It is just so hard to steer around the problems of both Social control and free-market liberalism, as well as the savage state-of-mind that property possession puts people in. Maybe socialism is the cause of all of it, maybe not.

I won't deny to you that the U.S. has been a mad success relative to other nations in history, or even other Industrialized nations. That isn't to say that it is such a good success.

edit: Horrible speling. Spelling.

[pirana 0]

Quote

>Those labels are rather infantile in my opinion; a form of groupspeak (or mobspeak) for those that think and act divisively.

Uh huh. And what do you think of people who do not support the free-market structure you endorse? There is no chance that you label people based on their view of a free-market? Interesting. You might be the first free-market guy on the planet who has done this. "Just don't touch my private property, don't tax me, and don't impose laws on me. Thats all I want."

Quote

I'd call them not very wise, or experienced, or studied, or immature in their level of clear thinking. None of those are a putdown; just a reflection that some have the wherewithall to put away their emotions and the experience to apply to the ideals. There is a reason many cultures pay great respect to their elders - some unfortunately do not.

And I never said most of what you quote. You keep putting words in my mouth because you think you know my agenda and that it is politicized. My agenda is to lead a principle-centered life, and a couple of those principles are personal responsibility, ownership, awareness, etc. I would like to see more people do that and fewer make everything they do not like about their life somebody else's fault.

On the topic of the OP, if a person wants to make more money, they should build their skills and change jobs and make more money - not ask for a law that simply gives them more money.

If a person is working for minimum wage, the problem isn't the legally mandated minimum wage - it is their marketability and lack of ownership for the fact that all they can demand is minimum wage. (The post is about minimum wage, remember).

Skipping answering further since it really is all rooted in the same fundamental issue: People taking ownership for who they are. I do understand that some are dealt a tough hand. In this country, that is a small portion of the population.

I've taken to calling myself a Responsibilitist.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Did you really just compare the integrity of modern US immigration law to the mid-20th century law of minority regimes in India and Africa ?
...and in the same reply suggest that others should have a "more realistic world viewpoint" ?

No. He was showing how the standard of laws dictating between "right" and "wrong" is violated even in a view that turtlespeed would endorse. For example, it was illegal for the blacks to protest during the civil rights movement, but at the same time few people today would consider it "wrong." Thus, a law doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "wrong," it just gives the criterion by which law enforcement officials and nationalists judge the actions of other people.

>On a sidenote:
Right and wrong are points of view, much like good and evil.

Actually, those are all ethical statements, i.e. attempts at "moral correctness." Right and wrong are evaluative terms compared to ethical criterion. The point of view comes in when you either decline or accept a given set of ethical standards. (I.E: Standards that are laid out in: Ethical egoism, social contract theory, contractarianism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and so on.)

>The fact that they were (or are) written into law means that somebody, at some time, believed it to be "right", even if it wasn't you.

They believed it to be right, but that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong." Remember, ethics is a field in which thinkers attempt to find a set of normative criterion as "correct." Moral correctness is the goal. Unfortunately, this hasn't been shown, even for social contract theorists, which apparently is what you are here.

OK - so are we right in assuming that you advocate illegal activities then?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

>And I never said most of what you quote. You keep putting words in my mouth because you think you know my agenda and that it is politicized. My agenda is to lead a principle-centered life, and a couple of those principles are personal responsibility, ownership, awareness, etc.

Really? Stay consistent with your perception of personal responsibility, ownership, and a "principle-centered life" and what will you get? Something other than "Don't touch my property, don't impose laws on me, and don't tax me?"

>On the topic of the OP, if a person wants to make more money, they should build their skills and change jobs and make more money - not ask for a law that simply gives them more money.

That seems pretty sensible. Of course, it would also be sensible if business owners held true to your ideals and didn't accept money from the government nor required laws to employ people in a humane fashion - because history hasn't shown business owners to be very capable of this. Maybe your ideals are different. I would prefer your utopia, but your methods (and socialism, really) haven't given us much evidence to say you wouldn't follow the industrialist's methods.

Back to the OP, I understand that taxation causes firms to either reduce the cost of employment or reduce employment numbers. I also understand Unions aren't the most helpful when it comes to preserving that business. However, I also think the profit motive is irrational, and removing profit from all equations would greatly change 1) working conditions and 2) income stability for everyone. I think it is irrational to way for a profit-based economy to come around for productivity to increase again.

>If a person is working for minimum wage, the problem isn't the legally mandated minimum wage -

You are saying the problem isn't the fact that a law hasn't forced their employer to increase their wage or their working conditions. That makes sense. However, what doesn't make sense is requiring there to be a profit motive for people to be productive. This is irrational. Productivity need not stop because of a lack of profitability. That also does not mean the government needs to take ownership of a failing market, either.
Unfortunately, it is also irresponsible to say that a worker only makes minimum wage because they haven't been able to market themselves for a better wage. Why give a shit about anyone else's well being when you are focused on your own wealth creation?

>it is their marketability and lack of ownership for the fact that all they can demand is minimum wage. (The post is about minimum wage, remember).

No matter how terrible the economy is, or how underemployed they are. The firm is interested not in producing for society or employing people, it exists to earn profit. To "build wealth," whatever that means.

>I do understand that some are dealt a tough hand. In this country, that is a small portion of the population.

Bullshit. Compared to other countries, unemployment is still rather low. Unfortunately, that isn't to say that it is all that great of a number. What is it supposed to reach, between 10-12%? One in ten people does not have a job.

Utopia:

Remove profit from the equation, everyone contributes to society in some fashion. The salespeople, business executives, and so on get to be productive for a few hours a day as well - that's right, they don't get fancy paychecks simply because they took advantage of a market niche.

Some people call it communism. Some people confuse it with socialism. Some people confuse it with liberalism, and blame those people for being lazy and not contributing to society. Well, guess what, no one, including the CEOs who inherit high-paying positions get to be lazy anymore. Produce to produce, not to "build wealth."

[chasteh 0]

Everyone does, actually. The problem occurs as a result of the ethical set that you compare the actions to.

Ever jump a packjob that was older than 120 (or now 180) days old? Ever see someone pack a parachute that was not in direct supervision of a parachute rigger? Ever jump out of an airplane that went a few hours over its maintenance schedule to keep loads going? Ever jump out of an airplane after official sunset without the right lighting equipment? Ever jump through a cloud?

Everyone, at some point in time, is a little bit naughty. Do I think illegal immigration is right? or that it should be done? It might depend on the context. For example, is the person a refugee? Is their a massive drug war going on in their city, and the easiest way for them to get out of it is hop your fence?

Ever been kicked off your high-horse?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Everyone does, actually. The problem occurs as a result of the ethical set that you compare the actions to.

Ever jump a packjob that was older than 120 (or now 180) days old? Ever see someone pack a parachute that was not in direct supervision of a parachute rigger? Ever jump out of an airplane that went a few hours over its maintenance schedule to keep loads going? Ever jump out of an airplane after official sunset without the right lighting equipment? Ever jump through a cloud?

Everyone, at some point in time, is a little bit naughty. Do I think illegal immigration is right? or that it should be done? It might depend on the context. For example, is the person a refugee? Is their a massive drug war going on in their city, and the easiest way for them to get out of it is hop your fence?

Ever been kicked off your high-horse?

I have yet to see someone list the offenses above as a Federal Crime.

Illegal Immigration is a FEDERAL CRIME

And no - the horse I ride isn't high - that is a democrat thing to have. If they did in fact inhale.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

Just out of curiosity, what is it, then, if you do break a Federal law? Are you pilot, or the average skydiver? Part 105 says that it is against Federal law to do any of those things. Have you done them? You have. What skydiver hasn't broken an FAA regulation before?

If an illegal immigrant can put other people in danger, so can skydiving. Ever heard of a bad spot before? Do you, really, know how many airliners buzz right over Eloy every day? There is an airway going directly over Eloy from Phoenix to Tucson. Aircraft are flying over/near Eloy as they are at any major drop zone. Buzzing a cloud along those airways is reckless, and it just so happens to be against the law. If you said you had never done this as an experienced skydiver, you would be a liar.

You seem to be content with the notion that something's being illegal means that is is absolutely wrong to do so, or that it is always unsafe. It is illegal here to jump a reserve that has not been packed in 180 days, yet in Europe you can wait for an entire year to have the exact same equipment re-packed. Is that wrong to jump a reserve that hasn't been packed in 180 days here simply because of the law? Nuh uh. It is illegal, it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Contractarians love assuming that the only morally correct set of actions is the set that the majority of people agree on in an area. (Hence, laws) Unfortunately for contractualism, popular consent doesn't make something right, wrong, correct or false. It just means your action was or wasn't agreed upon by most - sort of like your defense of Illegal immigration laws.

>And no - the horse I ride isn't high - that is a democrat thing to have. If they did in fact inhale.

Yet you still think you are better than democrats. Why else would you say arrogance is a trait that democrats have?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>And no - the horse I ride isn't high - that is a democrat thing to have. If they did in fact inhale.

Yet you still think you are better than democrats. Why else would you say arrogance is a trait that democrats have?

LMAO - because of the giant stick up their ass. I said high horse as in "pot smoking". And then I boldly illuded to Clinton's claim that he never inhaled.

. . . as to the rest . . . I showed you chapter and verse where it is detailed and spelled out what he penalties and fines associated with breaking a federal law by illegal immigration ARE.

Do the same with your examples? Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud. What are the fines and penalties? What court adjudicates the offences and charges?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

>Do the same with your examples? Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud.

Cloud clearance requirements are laid out in FAR PART 91.155:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/91.155


>What are the fines and penalties?

Suspension or revocation of an airman certificate, including:
Pilots licenses
Operators certificates
Airport access priveleges
Placement on the TSA's No Fly list

I'd hate to say this because I like skydivers, the sport, and the people that are in it - but you know fuck about the system that you get yourself into every time you get in and out of the airplane. You know fuck about the legal, meteorological, and the rest of the eternal list that comprises aviation and how it functions. Sorry... It had to be said. The people who work to make it happen are the ones who know: The operators, the pilots, the riggers, the FAA and its ATC representatives, and so on.

The benefit? You have next to nothing to lose as a skydiver. What license do you have to lose? What are they going to do? Take your A- license? Nope. It is not an FAA certificate, and they are not involved in your certification. However, FAR part 105 says what the Federal Code of Regulations
(ya know, that Federal word - the LAW) says must occur within the operation, among Part 91, 61, 43, and so on. They will shut down the operation instead, and take the pilot's certificates - ruin his career, and you will ruin a business and piss a lot of other people off. (People who jump at that DZ)

That sounds like you, as a skydiver, can end up really fucking up a lot of peoples lives by breaking a law. Guess what - the FAA does watch. You never know when they could be at your DZ. They came to ours and ramp checked our entire fleet last week. We passed.

>What court adjudicates the offences and charges?

The U.S. Federal court does, if i'm not mistaken. I have been fortunate enough to not have an issue with the FAA. Oh yea, they also do fine people for breaking the FARs. As an airman, I will be fined $250,000 dollars for even falsifying an Airman Medical certificate. Thats a pretty big offense.

Unfortunately, the SIM doesn't list any of that. What does it have for meteorology? A half a page of weather information? What does it have for FAA regulations? Six pages?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Utopia:

Remove profit from the equation, everyone contributes to society in some fashion. The salespeople, business executives, and so on get to be productive for a few hours a day as well - that's right, they don't get fancy paychecks simply because they took advantage of a market niche.

It's all about incentive or disencentive. Ideally a system with both.

With no profit allowed the whole incentive base is "for the good of your society" which I do not believe would work in american society. So this would mainly be a disencentive based system. What would you do to force people to work/contribute?

Which means people would only do as little as they had to and feel they are entitled to it and more. Very little new thinking, no innovation, etc. because "selfish" people would not bother as there is nothing in it for them.

You mentioned the immigration issues in the past: the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians. They had it much harder than the illegal immigrants of today. They were exploited way worse by businesses looking for cheap labor. They managed to overcome and integrate into society. They didn't get gov't assistance and start demanding services in their native language.

Personally, I'm very independent. If I want something enough, I'll figure out how to get it. I don't generally like feeling like I was "given" something as I tend to not appreciate it as much or even just take it for granted.

I feel that the more people are given things, the less they truly have...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 226]

Sounds like someone touched a nerve.

How does one end up knowing fuck about something anyway? Is that something that is new? Is that a new way of thinking or learning? Describe that process for me.

You might want to go back and do some homework . . .

I'm a little tired of doing it for you.

Quote

The U.S. Federal court does, if i'm not mistaken.

You are.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

>It's all about incentive or disencentive. Ideally a system with both.

In a profit based system it is about incentive. In a society where you have to actually work to survive, your incentive is survival, and then producing to gain whatever extra you want. You can still have a system where there is trade. Unfortunately, the free-marketeer assumes that there has to be a profit motive to have a market. The problem isn't the market, it is the fact that producers only do so to benefit themselves with wealth. Thus, we have a society filled with salesmen, consultants, entrepreneurs, all of which do not produce - they earn money by marketing something and taking a slice of the profit.

>With no profit allowed the whole incentive base is "for the good of your society"

Actually, you can produce in excess and trade that to get more for yourself. The problem is that the production within today's American society is not for producing for people- or even yourself, it is for collecting profit.

>which I do not believe would work in american society.

Considering the U.S. is a profit-driven capitalistic society, I guess it wouldn't work if profit were taken out of the equation.

>So this would mainly be a disencentive based system.

False, for the above reasons.

>What would you do to force people to work/contribute?

Nothing. Don't assume, like you already have, that you have to either force people to work or explain to them that they can earn wealth to have productivity. That is a horrible, horrible folly.

>Which means people would only do as little as they had to and feel they are entitled to it and more.

You are assuming the society is stuck as a provider of welfare. That argument might work against socialism and giving people sustenance without question, but that isn't within my premises, now is it?

>Very little new thinking, no innovation, etc. because "selfish" people would not bother as there is nothing in it for them.

Mmm no they still can innovate and invent, and when they produce a new good they will have something of value for society and themselves. Where in that does there have to be profit, or businessmen working to steal a deal out of the product? There doesn't.

>You mentioned the immigration issues in the past: the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians. They had it much harder than the illegal immigrants of today.

I did?

>They were exploited way worse by businesses looking for cheap labor. They managed to overcome and integrate into society.

Yet they either remained poor or ended up working property (well, stealing it I mean).

>They didn't get gov't assistance and start demanding services in their native language.

Mmmm we will leave it up to a factfinder for that. But let's assume your right. What comparison does this have to what I said?

edit:
Oh yea, ever hear of the homestead act?

>Personally, I'm very independent. If I want something enough, I'll figure out how to get it.

Wait a minute, why doesn't that apply in my utopia, again? It sounds like you have motivation already - outside of profit-making. If you want food an shelter badly enough, you will go get it. If you want to add more to your possessions, you will go produce as such. Trade is still very much a part of the system.

>I don't generally like feeling like I was "given" something as I tend to not appreciate it as much or even just take it for granted. I feel that the more people are given things, the less they truly have...

Cute. Who is giving it to you, again? Producing for society doesn't mean that there is no exchange. It just does not occur in a way that underpays capital, labor, or raw material providers for the benefit or earning profit.

[chasteh 0]

By golly, where do people defend themselves against the Federal Aviation Administration, then?

Your response is very, very short. Perhaps you could delve further into how laws that you prefer to break are any less sensitive to society than an illegal immigrant is, given how much damage it can cause. I have only provided examples as to how your actions in a sport can do it.

Oh yea, and as far as homework goes,

who determines whether or not an action is right or wrong? At what point does breaking a law become morally correct or incorrect? How does the United States government's authority make something right or wrong, in actuality?

They are illegal or legal, not right and wrong.

Social Contract theory. Go read about it.

Oh yea, and stop acting like your this champion of legal activity. If you really supported upholding the law then you would put forth far greater effort into incriminating yourself than you are willing to do. Crap.

>You are.

Did you just throw a "rock" at me?

[Bolas 5]

Comments in bold.

Quote

>It's all about incentive or disencentive. Ideally a system with both.

In a profit based system it is about incentive. In a society where you have to actually work to survive, your incentive is survival, and then producing to gain whatever extra you want. Exactly

You can still have a system where there is trade. Unfortunately, the free-marketeer assumes that there has to be a profit motive to have a market. The problem isn't the market, it is the fact that producers only do so to benefit themselves with wealth. Thus, we have a society filled with salesmen, consultants, entrepreneurs, all of which do not produce - they earn money by marketing something and taking a slice of the profit.

They do take a slice, but their justification is their "piece" generally is in the extra profits made for all involved. You can produce the best "product" in the world but without salespeople, consultants, etc. It's not likely to be used or even produced by more people. I would consider entrepreneurs producers. Did you by chance mean venture capitalists?

>With no profit allowed the whole incentive base is "for the good of your society"

Actually, you can produce in excess and trade that to get more for yourself. The problem is that the production within today's American society is not for producing for people- or even yourself, it is for collecting profit.

So is this a barter based society? No money? Even so you'll have "profit" in form of extra product which can be used to trade for other goods and services.

>which I do not believe would work in american society.

Considering the U.S. is a profit-driven capitalistic society, I guess it wouldn't work if profit were taken out of the equation.True, we're kinda seeing the start of that now.

>So this would mainly be a disencentive based system.

False, for the above reasons.

>What would you do to force people to work/contribute?

Nothing. Don't assume, like you already have, that you have to either force people to work or explain to them that they can earn wealth to have productivity. That is a horrible, horrible folly.

It is? How do you convince them to contribute?

>Which means people would only do as little as they had to and feel they are entitled to it and more.

You are assuming the society is stuck as a provider of welfare. That argument might work against socialism and giving people sustenance without question, but that isn't within my premises, now is it?

So a certain percentage of what they "produce" is used for that purpose?

>Very little new thinking, no innovation, etc. because "selfish" people would not bother as there is nothing in it for them.

Mmm no they still can innovate and invent, and when they produce a new good they will have something of value for society and themselves. Where in that does there have to be profit, or businessmen working to steal a deal out of the product? There doesn't.

Producing for society doesn't mean that there is no exchange. It just does not occur in a way that underpays capital, labor, or raw material providers for the benefit or earning profit.

If there is was no real reward, why would someone risk it? You already mentioned that those that produced more got more so the question is sort of null and void.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>You are.

Did you just throw a "rock" at me?

No - this is a computer. There are no real rocks here - just virtual ones.

But it wasn't a virtual rock either, it was a statement, short and to the point, that you were mistaken, and still are.

The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different

Also according to the FAA Website, per occurance 50K is all that can fined per occurance for an individual that is not a . . . hell - just read it yourself . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

>Exactly

Great. So we agree then. Fuck profit incentives. Hooray for actually producing things for people!

>They do take a slice, but their justification is their "piece" generally is in the extra profits made for all involved.

Yep. Fuck it.

>You can produce the best "product" in the world but without salespeople, consultants, etc. It's not likely to be used or even produced by more people.

Fine with that. I can do away with marketing executives and advertising ploys. You, again, are assuming that there will be a need to market the good to more poeple in the world - again, you are assuming there is a profit motive. If there is no profit from production, there is no need to tour the world with it - unless, of course, you wanted to trade your product with someone else's. Profit is not needed for this.

>I would consider entrepreneurs producers. Did you by chance mean venture capitalists?

You would? So they actually get out on the assembly line and work huh? Interesting. You could probably file venture capitalists as the same. Non- producers, yet owners of capital and the means to employ the people who actually produce.

>So is this a barter based society? No money? Even so you'll have "profit" in form of extra product which can be used to trade for other goods and services.

This is far different from selling something to another person above your cost to produce it. That is what I am against. Production is for an end in itself; it is not for salespeople.

>>Considering the U.S. is a profit-driven capitalistic society, I guess it wouldn't work if profit were taken out of the equation.

>True, we're kinda seeing the start of that now.

And by "work" I mean the capitalistic mode of production would be destroyed, merely because profit seekers depend on...well... profit...

Again, producing a surplus is totally allowable. However, a salesperson earning a slice by marketing the product is not acceptable. He is not producing. He is a leach.

>It is?

Yes. Cave men and women produced for the purposes of survival, until they finally produced enough to create other goods. There is room for this in my utopia - really, the room is there in capitalism as well, except the wealth-building motives get in the way.

>How do you convince them to contribute?

No force, and no profit. Oh yea, no theft. The incentive to produce still exists because 1) of survival and 2) because there are other goods to consume. Wealth-building is not an essential feature of trade. It is an essential feature of greed.

>So a certain percentage of what they "produce" is used for that purpose?

Absolutely not. I have said this several times already. There are other functional societies out there besides capitalism and communism. People do, actually, have other ideas that can work.

Speaking of work - everyone contributes in some way. No one functions as a "private contractor" merely for the purposes of promoting a product and then reaping the rewards of that success. That person, first, must actually create something.

>If there is was no real reward, why would someone risk it? You already mentioned that those that produced more got more so the question is sort of null and void

The rewards are still very real. See above.

Null and void? You mean that there is a contradiction being able to produce more for your own benefit and earning profit. The difference is that the profit comes from reducing the cost of your inputs and selling the good at a higher price than those inputs cost. Because this society's function is producing as an end in itself, this process of "up-selling" is no longer existent.