I work with this guy who ...

[jasonnoguchi]

In economics, labor and wages are a function of supply and demand as well. Factories pay low because there are a greater supply of people who can perform that particular job. Yes, unions can create minimum wages but that will cause stress on small medium enterprises which will lower the supply of jobs due to lesser number of companies and bigger companies turning to technology and ultimately, job seekers suffer joblessness for the sake of those few who are still employed. is that what we want? free market is the way to go. If your factory isn't paying well enough, ask him to go look for one that does. If no factories are paying him what he expects, then it is he who has the problem and must upgrade his skills in order to go to a lesser supply labor class.

All in all, let free markets decide the price and everything will work out fine.

[Mjenn]

Originally Posted by lovcom

You can't compare the USA with the Nanny states of Denmark and Sweden. Over there you have to try very hard to stay poor because of all the socialistic entitlements. In contrast, the USA has less of those, so again your comparision is unfair.

The reason folks coming out of poor families in the USA are more likely to be poor themselves is NOT a lack of opportunitie or lack of entitlements.

The reason is this:

Mom and dad (if there is a dad) is either on crack, or lazy, an alcoholic, or uneducated, or would rather watch TV then attend night school, or loves to party, or works overtime to keep that gangsta Chrysler 300 with $3,000 spinning wheels, allows their kids to stay up past 11pm on school nights, does not champion their education, nor participates in their children's lives....the list goes on and no....

Democrats, socialists, and liberals love to blame society for the ills of the poor...and at the end of the day, and in most cases, the fault lands squarely on each poor adult person.

Except I think this statistic shows the opposite - in nanny states where social welfare payments are based on a living standard which includes a TV and daily newspaper - more people are moving upwards and choosing to support themselves - 75 % of the next generation, are in fact deciding not to live off benefits - because the alternative is better.

Which shows that entitlements do not necessarily create lazy attitudes.


I'm sorry but while I know there are a lot of crack addicts out there, I don't think all poor are degenerates or are capable of digging themselves out of their situations on their own.

Minimum wage is low, rent is high - there are little to no margins and times are getting tougher.

Also, let's be careful throwing around words like communist and socialist - I don't consider myself either - and there are plenty of other political models around the world that don't fall squarely into either category which provide health care, welfare, parental leave benefits and other subsidies for the population at large and manage to be the home of many successful global companies.

[Broken Arrow]

Originally Posted by SnoopyCool

It is much more efficient to change your own world than to demand that the world change to suit your needs.

As a general policy, I agree with this.

I often find the exercise of "debating" to be... unproductive.

Not so much that I don't think I can't learn something from it. But then, you can learn something from almost anything if you really try.

I think the trouble I find is that a lot of people who wants to debate me is that they don't seem interested in learning. They just want to hang on to their side of the opinions for all it's worth, even when I show them to be incorrect. (If they are correct, I don't mind accepting it. But then, I also don't care for debating.)

Some will say, "But that's the point of debating." Maybe so, but if that's the case, then I find the very exercise itself to be unproductive. After all, when it's all said and done, what will you have accomplished?

Yes, there are times when debating is appropriate and even necessary, but not most of the time. Most of the time, I find that it is best to stick with the policy of keeping an open mind as much as possible, listen as much as possible, and learn as much as possible.

We should not be defined by what we think. We should be defined by how willing we are to think.

And if anyone disagrees with that, I'm ready to debate this for all I'm worth. Just kidding! But seriously, were I in the OP's shoes, I would basically ignore him. The way I look at it is that, regardless of the outcome, it still doesn't change the amount of my pay.

[feh]

Originally Posted by irmanator

He likes to debate to pass the time on our boring job. That part is ok. The part that isn't is I feel he is wrong but I am new to debating my opinions and am not so good at it. So if I throw his statement out there maybe you guys can help me set him strait?? (or set me strait whichever??)

There is no right or wrong. There is only your opinion.

[thekid]

Originally Posted by feh

There is only your opinion.

Well, that's a narrow minded viewpoint if I ever saw one.

[syracusa]

Originally Posted by Snodog

I'm a little surprised at all of those who said they are not in favor of wealth re-distribution. Do you really want a flat tax with no exemptions? That would be devastating to a lot of folks, probably many close friends and relatives of yours.

I wish our income taxes where more progressive. When you take into account all taxes (sales, real estate, ect.) our taxes are quite regressive.

I agree with your friend, the high income individual should pay more and its fair because the rules are the same for every person. Also they gain more from the system and have more to loose if the system crumbles. And i'm not worried about the world falling apart because noone will create jobs anymore if we raise taxes a few percent. Lots of other countries (just as prosperous as US) have higher tax rates and jobs are still created.

The rich paying a little more tax is a small price to pay to avoid another civil war.

Flame away

Dr. Seuss said..."You can't teach a sneech".
And you can't.

[highsavings]

Originally Posted by toboramai

Proof or link showing this is true?

I am considered 'rich' for my age and in favor of a progressive tax system.

I can't find the source where I read this. But if you name people who came from old money, I can give you 10x more people who are new money. You really think the majority of wealthy people got their money from relatives?

Easy example is the group of celebrities out there. It is easy to say the majority of celebrities did not get their wealth from their family.

[Rayl]

If you do a little calculating based on inflation over the past 40 years, the cost of goods and services has gone up an average of 1800 percent, while most salaries have only increased 500 percent. If salaries went up at the same rate as the cost of goods and services the MINIMUM wage would be approximately $40 an hour. The thing is, nothing would change. Those earning minimum wage would still be at the bottom of the social ladder and be considered poor.

[highsavings]

Originally Posted by Rayl

Those earning minimum wage would still be at the bottom of the social ladder and be considered poor.

Good point.

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by Mjenn

Except I think this statistic shows the opposite - in nanny states where social welfare payments are based on a living standard which includes a TV and daily newspaper - more people are moving upwards and choosing to support themselves - 75 % of the next generation, are in fact deciding not to live off benefits - because the alternative is better.

Which shows that entitlements do not necessarily create lazy attitudes.


I'm sorry but while I know there are a lot of crack addicts out there, I don't think all poor are degenerates or are capable of digging themselves out of their situations on their own.

Minimum wage is low, rent is high - there are little to no margins and times are getting tougher.

Also, let's be careful throwing around words like communist and socialist - I don't consider myself either - and there are plenty of other political models around the world that don't fall squarely into either category which provide health care, welfare, parental leave benefits and other subsidies for the population at large and manage to be the home of many successful global companies.

Actually the reverse is true. For example, the USA has the most productive workers in the world, even more so then Japan and Germany, and yet has less entitlelements then those countries. The more entitlements the less productive a population is.

The error Europeans make is that they refuse to blame the individual for their ills...they will always point a finger at society, and this is dead wrong and this actually makes matters worse because it demeans people, treating them like children and with no respect.

Don't give the fish away....better to teach a poor person how to fish so he can feed himself and have self-respect.

[feh]

Originally Posted by lovcom

The more entitlements the less productive a population is.

Do you have data that indicates a causal relationship between the two, or is this an assumption on your part?

[inneedofhelp]

I think it is wrong to take the "if you don't like it, leave" kind of approach. The reality is that there are so many families who are the working poor who even though working very hard for minimum wage are unable to meet all of their expenses.

Not everyone has the same experiences, so while you have been fortunate to receive raises, etc., some people are not.

I don't think that Bill Gates should cut a huge check because he does have numerous charities, but I do feel that the rich should be taxed without a doubt. Also, with all of the tax breaks and things that occur for them, why not?

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by feh

Do you have data that indicates a causal relationship between the two, or is this an assumption on your part?

Here is just two sources....countless others all over the net:

U.S. Workers Ranked as World's Most Productive - employers - labor - productivity

FOXNews.com - Americans Are World's Most Productive Workers, U.N. Report Finds - Business And Money | Business News | Financial News

And in fact, the nordic countries and all of Europe are low...they want all these freebies from the gov but don't want to work for them...socialism/nanny state mentality, to be sure. It is human nature to take the path of least resistence, just like electricity.

What the European govs fail to see is that their nanny state has trained the populations be provide low productivity....it's a frame of mind that is so Un-American, and runs contra to the Yankee Can-Do attitude.

It does not take a villiage....it takes a family....the power of the individual!

[feh]

Originally Posted by lovcom

Here is just one source....countless others all over the net:

U.S. Workers Ranked as World's Most Productive - employers - labor - productivity

FOXNews.com - Americans Are World's Most Productive Workers, U.N. Report Finds - Business And Money | Business News | Financial News

And in fact, the nordic countries and all of Europe are low...they want all these freebies from the gov but don't want to work for them...socialism/nanny state mentality, to be sure.

You mis-interpreted my question. I'm not debating which country's residents are most productive; I'm questioning your statement that more entitlements causes less productivity.

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by Broken Arrow

As a general policy, I agree with this.

I often find the exercise of "debating" to be... unproductive.

Not so much that I don't think I can't learn something from it. But then, you can learn something from almost anything if you really try.

I think the trouble I find is that a lot of people who wants to debate me is that they don't seem interested in learning. They just want to hang on to their side of the opinions for all it's worth, even when I show them to be incorrect. (If they are correct, I don't mind accepting it. But then, I also don't care for debating.)

Some will say, "But that's the point of debating." Maybe so, but if that's the case, then I find the very exercise itself to be unproductive. After all, when it's all said and done, what will you have accomplished?

Yes, there are times when debating is appropriate and even necessary, but not most of the time. Most of the time, I find that it is best to stick with the policy of keeping an open mind as much as possible, listen as much as possible, and learn as much as possible.

We should not be defined by what we think. We should be defined by how willing we are to think.

And if anyone disagrees with that, I'm ready to debate this for all I'm worth. Just kidding! But seriously, were I in the OP's shoes, I would basically ignore him. The way I look at it is that, regardless of the outcome, it still doesn't change the amount of my pay.

I somewhat agree with you, but I also think that debating makes you think about your own position more. I am logic driven and if someone can show me an apparent error in my logic, it bothers me. I tend to mull over that until I either change my position or dig deep enough square the circle.

But of course, at some point, you just have to stop beating your head against the wall. For instance, I doubt GrimJack and I will ever agree

[Broken Arrow]

I understand. Some prefer a more debate-like format and I don't see anything wrong with that. Personally though, I do think that my own truth-seeking is stimulation enough... as I tend to be my own worst critic.

[PetMom]

I have to agree with Broken Arrow: ignore him.

And here is something else:

you guys have that much downtime? Here is how you get ahead and maybe even get promoted away from this guy who wants to debate on employers time - ask what you can do during downtime. Your boss will be impressed.

There is always something that can be done - administrative work, cleaning help, learning more skills/skill sets in your field - having any free time on a job is almost like money - use it!

Bosses/ managers notice hard workers that have a good attitude. Get away from this guy and use your free time for productive purposes.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

I don't think she is talking about down time. I think she works on an assembly line. If quiet enough and workers proximate, sometimes one can converse while working on an assembly line.

Also, I think our original poster recently scored a better job elsewhere.

[irmanator]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

I don't think she is talking about down time. I think she works on an assembly line. If quiet enough and workers proximate, sometimes one can converse while working on an assembly line.

Also, I think our original poster recently scored a better job elsewhere.

yes and yes

and I actually started my new job 2 days ago...
been in a classroom though because there are so many rules and regulations to learn in caring for developmentally disabled people...

[Scanner]

I win every debate so follow my advice, LOL.

My advice is to pick one aspect of his thesis and then expand it a bit and then attack it.

For instance, he is basically saying he favors what is called Progressive Taxation - the more income you make, the more you should pay.

I would counter with this:

"I don't favor income tax at all, especially wage tax. I'd rather favor a Value Added Tax. . .one which taxes goods like oil, sugary sodas, cigarettes, beer. . .anything that's fit for consumption.

Working is a virtue and should be encouraged. Blind consumption is a vice.

Why would you favor taxing something as virtuous as work?"

Now, he's on the defensive when you ask a question that way.

This is how I win debates all the time with Broken Arrow, LOL. Right BA?