The True Cost of California's Minimum Wage Hikes

[OldJourno]

Why should I be jealous?
It's just an online discussions, and I'm in no way impacted by these things. And I'm not referring to multi- millionaires, just to billionaires.


I just challenge the moral and ethical values of a society that allows some to make billions of dollars in profit while their workers can barely afford a decent standard of living. And the fact that some of those are allowed to make their profits by hollowing countries' economy.

Since the neoliberal - globalist - corporatist ideology took roots in the 70's, we've become a global society that elevated speculators and money lenders to the rank of nobility.
Instead of the people who trully make contributions to civilisations like innovations and so on.

Just a trivia: A few hundred years ago, speculators were hanged.

Do you have a clue how many people are millionaires because of Bill Gates? That's not a bad thing.
And yeah, I hate these fur king Microsoft popups, but MS has been a real net plus in millions of lives.

 

[HisArpy]

Why should I be jealous?
It's just an online discussions, and I'm in no way impacted by these things. And I'm not referring to multi- millionaires, just to billionaires.


I just challenge the moral and ethical values of a society that allows some to make billions of dollars in profit while their workers can barely afford a decent standard of living. And the fact that some of those are allowed to make their profits by hollowing countries' economy.

Since the neoliberal - globalist - corporatist ideology took roots in the 70's, we've become a global society that elevated speculators and money lenders to the rank of nobility.
Instead of the people who trully make contributions to civilisations like innovations and so on.

Just a trivia: A few hundred years ago, speculators were hanged.

Let's talk about this.

We can start with Bill Gates/Microsoft. Decent product, used by BILLIONS of people all around the world.

Should he give it away for free? Of course, if he does, he can't afford to pay his workers. Or buy the components necessary to continue to develop the product to stay ahead of hackers and technology. But, hey, making billions is gauche, so let's say he should only get $1 profit (after paying his workers and suppliers and so on) on each sale.

$1.

Times BILLIONS of products sold.

At what point do you demand he give it away for free and therefore lay off his workers and screw over his suppliers and THEIR workers?

But hey, it's only Microsoft right? Right? Except it's not. It's the solar power industry. And AI. And robotics. And the food you eat. And just about everything else too from movies to music to gasoline to lawnmowers and so on. People don't get rich on one or two sales with huge profit margins. They get rich by selling products/ideas with small profit margins to millions of people who really really REALLY want them.

Your distopia fails to account for that reality. Instead it substitutes jealousy and envy and uses the power of the government to steal in order to satisfy that jealousy and envy. What's interesting to note is that every time this has been tries in history, the government got rich but the poor people they were (supposedly) helping got poorer. I wonder why that happened?

Theft is theft. You want more out of life, go earn it. If you can't, don't blame someone else for their abilities and skills that let them succeed where you failed.

 

[Christobal]

As the minum wage rises robots and technology becume attrachtive .

 

[hashtag46]

My only -rhetorical- question is:

In what Universe does any of you find it ethical that a sweatshop worker in China works for 1$ a day (and if things go this way, americans will find themselves in similar situations) while their employer makes a billion dollars a year?

 

[Christobal]

I hate auto corrrct

 

[Ishmael]

Let's talk about this.

We can start with Bill Gates/Microsoft. Decent product, used by BILLIONS of people all around the world.

Should he give it away for free? Of course, if he does, he can't afford to pay his workers. Or buy the components necessary to continue to develop the product to stay ahead of hackers and technology. But, hey, making billions is gauche, so let's say he should only get $1 profit (after paying his workers and suppliers and so on) on each sale.

$1.

Times BILLIONS of products sold.

At what point do you demand he give it away for free and therefore lay off his workers and screw over his suppliers and THEIR workers?

But hey, it's only Microsoft right? Right? Except it's not. It's the solar power industry. And AI. And robotics. And the food you eat. And just about everything else too from movies to music to gasoline to lawnmowers and so on. People don't get rich on one or two sales with huge profit margins. They get rich by selling products/ideas with small profit margins to millions of people who really really REALLY want them.

Your distopia fails to account for that reality. Instead it substitutes jealousy and envy and uses the power of the government to steal in order to satisfy that jealousy and envy. What's interesting to note is that every time this has been tries in history, the government got rich but the poor people they were (supposedly) helping got poorer. I wonder why that happened?

Theft is theft. You want more out of life, go earn it. If you can't, don't blame someone else for their abilities and skills that let them succeed where you failed.

As a historical footnote. Recall back when various governments went after MicroSoft for being a 'monopoly?' Gates was apolitical back then but now he's giving away billions and funding various politicians. And since he started funding those politicians his (MicroSofts) problems have gone away? Isn't legalized extortion wonderful?

And almost each and every one of those politicians were acting to "protect" the little guy. Protect him/her from what? I haven't noticed any dramatic price drop in the product, quite the contrary. They just identified another pile of money they could extort for their own efforts to remain in office. And the plebes bought the whole schtick, hook, line, and sinker while their lives got a little more miserable.

Ishmael

 

[HisArpy]

My only -rhetorical- question is:

In what Universe does any of you find it ethical that a sweatshop worker in China works for 1$ a day (and if things go this way, americans will find themselves in similar situations) while their employer makes a billion dollars a year?

You say that as if that $1/day is somehow less than a standard wage for that place at that time.

HOW MUCH a person earns is based on the cost of living where that person is. What YOU would work for in Chicago or Seattle is meaningless because a sweatshop worker in Bangkok could live for YEARS on one of your weekly paychecks.

Maybe instead of crying about the falling sky you should donate your paycheck to 10 sweatshop workers. That way they'd be able to live as comfortably as you do.

 

[hashtag46]

My only -rhetorical- question is:

In what Universe does any of you find it ethical that a sweatshop worker in China works for 1$ a day (and if things go this way, americans will find themselves in similar situations) while their employer makes a billion dollars a year?

1$ a day was just a figure of speech for "it's not nearly enough for a decent standard of living".


Of course there will be some rational - technocratic answer in the line of : the chinese are paying them 0.1$ a day, so transnational corporations are in fact helping them and the chinese ecomomy blah blah blah.

But that doesn't change the fact that paying a chinese worker only 1$ a day, for a work that brings in billions of dollars isn't right.
Neither is it ok to ask the middle class to become impoverished in order to help the less fortunate.


I don't have the answer, neither do I have the the knowledge.
I just notice that instead of coming up with creative solutions, youall continue to push the same Right or Left wing politics that were proven by history to be equally disastruous.

 

[Christobal]

You do realise you just gave the perfect argument for moving a job overseas to a cheaper place.

 

[Emerson40]

I'm not sure what is funnier: the lazy, ignorant twat who can't hack a 36-40 hour work week, spent the last couple years on feather-leave and supping at the teat of social assistance, bleating about the 'injustice' of those who have enjoyed financial gains for their hard work and efforts, or the folks trying to explain the basic ABCs of business to an obvious dullard with the comprehension of a toddler, determined to steer every topic and thread into a discussion about race.

 

[Ishmael]

1$ a day was just a figure of speech for "it's not nearly enough for a decent standard of living".


Of course there will be some rational - technocratic answer in the line of : the chinese are paying them 0.1$ a day, so transnational corporations are in fact helping them and the chinese ecomomy blah blah blah.

But that doesn't change the fact that paying a chinese worker only 1$ a day, for a work that brings in billions of dollars isn't right.
Neither is it ok to ask the middle class to become impoverished in order to help the less fortunate.


I don't have the answer, neither the knowledge either.
I just notice that instead of coming up with creative solutions, youall continue to push the same Right or Left wing politics that were proven by history to be equally disastruous.

Why is that a "fact" and why isn't it "not right?" If it elevates that individuals financial position above where they're at, or their peers, would it be preferable to make them unemployed? The value of anyone's labor content is based on their skill level and local market. A software engineer in Texas doesn't make the same salary as one in Mountain View, or in India for that matter. But in each and every case they make substantially more than the local mean salary.

Companies are NOT collectives. They are profit making entities answerable to their stock holders. And what a company makes in profit is NOT at the expense of the employee, it is to their benefit if they are profitable. Simply because if a company is not profitable it will soon be out of business and the employee will be unemployed.

This whole concept of "fairness" baffles me. Life isn't fair, never has been. I'm going to die, you're going to die, everyone is going to die. I don't particularly think that's fair, let's pass a law against death. That should fix everything..........right?

The people that bitch the most about 'fairness' are people that have NEVER put their own money at risk to start and build a business. They are, more often than not, people consumed with envy and bitter over their own abundance of risk aversion. They're like the waiter that brings the high stakes gambler their drinks to the table in Las Vegas and in so doing believe that they're entitled to a cut of every pot but not obligated to cover any losses.

Ishmael

 

[hashtag46]

ETA

Criticising calloussness (people who have no moral qualms about exploitation of factory workers like they do in China if the company makes a bit more bucks) isn't envy.

Do you know that until not long ago, some companies even justified child labour, claiming that they in fact helped families who would have otherwise suffered from hunger?

 

[hashtag46]

I'm not sure what is funnier: the lazy, ignorant twat who can't hack a 36-40 hour work week, spent the last couple years on feather-leave and supping at the teat of social assistance, bleating about the 'injustice' of those who have enjoyed financial gains for their hard work and efforts, or the folks trying to explain the basic ABCs of business to an obvious dullard with the comprehension of a toddler, determined to steer every topic and thread into a discussion about race.

Not funnier than a twat like who works 10 hours a day because he never went to College let alone Uni.
And is consumed by envy against the more educated who are able to sustain the same lifestyle by working less than that

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not sure what is funnier: the lazy, ignorant twat who can't hack a 36-40 hour work week, spent the last couple years on feather-leave and supping at the teat of social assistance, bleating about the 'injustice' of those who have enjoyed financial gains for their hard work and efforts, or the folks trying to explain the basic ABCs of business to an obvious dullard with the comprehension of a toddler, determined to steer every topic and thread into a discussion about race.

You're going to have to be more specific considering the participants in this thread. AJ alone can keep me laughing most of the morning. Reading anyone dumber than him can cause drain bramage.

 

[Disgustipated]

Not funnier than a twat like who works 10 hours a day because he never went to College let alone Uni.
And is consumed by envy against the more educated who are able to sustain the same lifestyle by working less than that

You abbreviate 3 letter words and have to edit every pist just so it's in the form of some language.

 

[hashtag46]

I see that the the trolls and the sexually preoccupied cyberstalker (Emerson) are starting to chime in.
I'll leave the thread.

 

[Emerson40]

Not funnier than a twat like who works 10 hours a day because he never went to College let alone Uni.
And is consumed by envy against the more educated who are able to sustain the same lifestyle by working less than that

I see that the the trolls and the sexually preoccupied cyberstalker (Emerson) are starting to chime in.
I'll leav the thread.

Astute and unpretentious, as usual.

 

[Ishmael]

Leaving aside those concepts:
Can you contest the fact that things are worse worldwide since the 70's?

Not I, but people who know their stuff like Mark Blyth and many others put it down to a very flawed model that came about in the 70's.

Worse for who, where? I think there are millions of Chinese that would disagree with you. The Sun is always shining somewhere.

One problem is that we, as humans, seek out those that agree with us based on our own specific problems. In psychiatric terms they're called "support groups." It's difficult indeed to see the world in terms outside of ourselves.

That being said, and addressing your question directly, I've opined on that more than once. I have a Wellesian (H. G. Welles) view of the future and I see no rainbow, not unless we can get off this rock and propagate throughout our galaxy. But I fear that we're going to 'fairness' ourselves into the trashcan of history.

I have stated before that robotics and AI are going to make a majority of those now living redundant and that means a planetary population reduction of billions. And I can't see those billions going quietly into that good night. If nothing else the political obstacles are almost overwhelming.

I have shit canned all of those meaningless altruistic notions of my youth. My priorities are, in order;

1. Me. If I can't take care of me I can't take care of anyone else.

2. My family. They are the reason I try to take care of me.

3. My nation. It provides the legal and philosophical framework within which I operate. It may be imperfect but if it's so much so why are so many trying to move here..........illegally?

Everything else, and everyone else, are just peripheral. I'll rejoice at your wins, and be saddened by your losses, but neither will alter my priorities. 99.9% of those that profess to put the interests of others above themselves are con-artists. Don't believe me? Go visit an attorney.

Ishmael

 

[hashtag46]

Worse for who, where? I think there are millions of Chinese that would disagree with you. The Sun is always shining somewhere.

One problem is that we, as humans, seek out those that agree with us based on our own specific problems. In psychiatric terms they're called "support groups." It's difficult indeed to see the world in terms outside of ourselves.

That being said, and addressing your question directly, I've opined on that more than once. I have a Wellesian (H. G. Welles) view of the future and I see no rainbow, not unless we can get off this rock and propagate throughout our galaxy. But I fear that we're going to 'fairness' ourselves into the trashcan of history.

I have stated before that robotics and AI are going to make a majority of those now living redundant and that means a planetary population reduction of billions. And I can't see those billions going quietly into that good night. If nothing else the political obstacles are almost overwhelming.

I have shit canned all of those meaningless altruistic notions of my youth. My priorities are, in order;

1. Me. If I can't take care of me I can't take care of anyone else.

2. My family. They are the reason I try to take care of me.

3. My nation. It provides the legal and philosophical framework within which I operate. It may be imperfect but if it's so much so why are so many trying to move here..........illegally?

Everything else, and everyone else, are just peripheral. I'll rejoice at your wins, and be saddened by your losses, but neither will alter my priorities. 99.9% of those that profess to put the interests of others above themselves are con-artists. Don't believe me? Go visit an attorney.

Ishmael

You're actually right.

Yes, it's easy for me to be moralistic or altruistic when my existence is based on a different system. And, like 86 demonstrated others can be just as outraged about, and argue that those who have it easier by being paid more by the hour are mooching off the rest.

And let's say that I invented and obtained a patent for a better and cheaper fabric.
If one of those billionaire multinational corporations offered me 1% of their profit for that, I'd take it in a heartbeat. And I'd immediately forget my previous ethical concerns about the fact that they pay chinese workers 1$ per hour.

I think that I should leave out the moralistic tone from my comments and phrase things in terms of "Yes, it's inevitable that economic inequality will occur, but how can a system be improved towards minimum casualties?"

 

[Ishmael]

You're actually right.

Yes, it's easy for me to be moralistic or altruistic when my existence is based on a different system. And, like 86 demonstrated others can be just as outraged about, and argue that those who have it easier by being paid more by the hour are mooching off the rest.

And let's say that I invented and obtained a patent for a better and cheaper fabric.
If one of those billionaire multinational corporations offered me 1% of their profit for that, I'd take it in a heartbeat. And I'd immediately forget my previous ethical concerns about the fact that they pay chinese workers 1$ per hour.

I think that I should leave out the moralistic tone from my comments and phrase things in terms of "Yes, it's inevitable that economic inequality will occur, but how can a system be improved towards minimum casualties?"

First of all, of course I am.

As to your your question, the implication is that there has to be a 'system'. And that implies that human beings are incapable of acting as their own agents, which implies that only government(s) can act as the arbiter of any transaction you care to engage in. That mind set has to change.

Ishmael

 

[Christobal]

If we all had morals Walmart wouldn't be there. If you ever shop for the lowest price you are part of the problem you are bothered about.


I must say I buy cheap. What do you do

 

[hashtag46]

First of all, of course I am.

As to your your question, the implication is that there has to be a 'system'. And that implies that human beings are incapable of acting as their own agents, which implies that only government(s) can act as the arbiter of any transaction you care to engage in. That mind set has to change.

Ishmael

Are you saying something in the line of:

Some people operate from the premise that this and that government are either corrupt or their political platforms are misguided. And that if only they would be replaced by 'the right' government, things might improve.
-- Which is pure utopia, because psychopaths or radical ideologues will always be attracted to places where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and will manage to subvert any doctrine.

So better look for ways to put checks and balances in place for governments.

 

[hashtag46]

If we all had morals Walmart wouldn't be there. If you ever shop for the lowest price you are part of the problem you are bothered about.

I must say I buy cheap. What do you do

Good point.
Although are those cheap or are the rest too expensive?

 

[BotanyBoy]

O

Youall american democrats and republicans are brainwashed by american propaganda, and you've become defenders of the 0.01%.

Justify throwing them under the bus.

Can you or can you not justify the arbitrary limitation of a persons income?

You keep speaking as though being the top 0.01% in and of itself makes them evil.

Make your argument..... "they have more than others" isn't one either.

 

[hashtag46]

Justify throwing them under the bus.

Can you or can you not justify the arbitrary limitation of a persons income?

No, that wasn't my main goal here.

I was just driven by some articles and books that I read recently, by Mark Blyth and John Ralston Saul. They both put down the precarious economic situation that most countries find themselves in nowadays, to the neoliberal - globalist - corporatist - technocratic model that arose in the 70's.

To someone like me, what I read made a lot of sense.
But I'm not going to hang on with a vengeance to those ideas, and I'd be more than willing to change my current views, provided that you come up with common sense counterarguments.



And this isn't just about "ME".
I'm just representative of many of the laypeople out there who have limitted knowledge in economics and whatever. The rationale that I just presented is common to a large chunk of those who voted for Brexit, Trump or will vote for nationalistic parties in Europe.
We might be more or less misinformed, but we represent a large part of the electorate so your arguments should be tailored to us too.