NationStates Jolt Archive

A new proposal has been put forward to the UN requesting that member nations enact legislation to introduce a minimum wage.

This benefits all members of society so the endorsement of both the capitalist and working class is being solicited.

To the capitalist minded fellows I would like to point out that a minimum wage will allow their workers, who are also consumers, to meet their very basic needs. It is only once these needs are satisfied that workers will be able to consume more and thereby sustain their enterprises.

To the working class, I would like to remind them that this will help them get a fair remuneration for their efforts and limit to a great extent their exploitation as they will be assured of a basic wage level that is considered suitable to assist them in accessing those goods and services that are basic and underly a decent human standard of living.

Minimum-wage laws are wrong.

First, they violate the right of individuals to make agreements between themselves without any external influence or force.

Second, they violate the right of property owners to use their property as they choose.

Minimum wage is 8 dollars in Johnistan

The minimum wage causes lost economic efficiency and hurts everyone. It causes unemployment to increase proportional to the square of the difference between the set wage and equilibrium wage and it also causes black markets. I've proved this in several different threads already.

The minimum wage would be best if it were 67% of the national average income, that way nations with varying amounts of economic power can all guarantee a certain quality of life for its residents.

Hm... that'd make the national average income go up, neh?

Obviously this would only apply to those backward nations still using capitalist economics however, I believe this proposal is a good idea as it will encourage them to progress. The economic costs of a minimum wage are irrelevant, everyone deserves the right to a good standard of living.

Ithuania: Your moral objections are meaningless because they make the assumption that a meritocracy exists, since it clearly does not and since capitalism is so inherantly unfair you cannot use the rights of property owners as an argument since they have no more right to property than anyone else.

Um, no.

The biggest problem with minimum wage laws is that it can bankrupt companies or put large branches out of business giving the company no chance to recoup some of the money. Minimum wage is something that needs to be done gradually with government support for companies in financial trouble otherwise all the companies which push themselves to the limit of their profits with expansion on the assumption that their costs will only rise based on material prices and current labor prices and not based on immediate government intervention.

Ok, I am going to copy and paste my thoughts on the minimum wage from another thread here...

Once upon a time I disagreed with the concept of abolishing the minimum wage too, but then someone (who will remain nameless but she is a libertarian politician) gave me an example that I thought made sense, so I did more research and she was right. The minimum wage doesn't prop people up- it keeps them down. Here is why:
1. Although you would think that raising the minimum wage would give people a better lifestyle, it doesn't. Why? Inflation. The higher you raise it, the more things cost. It is that simple. The only people that benefit from a higher minimum wage are students still living with their parents, as it gives them more disposable income, as the price of CD's doesn't go up as fast as things like rent do.
2. The example I was told: (the descriptions of fast food places are examples only, don't have a cow if you think one is better than the other, and I am not insulting people that work there- but I am still not telling who told me this just in case)
Ok, lets discuss three fast food restaurants. We have a Wendy's, a McDonald's, and a Hardee's. With a minimum wage law, all three are going to offer the same wage- the minimum. This is a low skill job, and they pay acordingly. They may pay 50 cents more or whatever once you've been there a year or so, but it is negligable. However, if there was no minimum wage level, they would have to pay differently. They would have to compete for the better workers, even at this low skill level. So say that McDonald's is content to pay the least- their burgers are the cheapest, they use the worst ingredients, and they will take what workers they can get because customers don't expect much. They still make a profit because they hire cheap labor. Hardee's pays a little more. Their burgers require a little effort to make. You may be required to have experience to work there, and you better not have a nosering- why? Because the pay is higher, the burgers cost more, and the customers want better service. Wendy's is even better- they pay more still- why? The corporation has strict rules about employee conduct- you have to be cleancut to work there- after all, people are paying more for a cleaner place to get food. You don't want someone's hair falling in it. Because they want the better employees, they have to offer more. They also require more- you may have had to work at one of the others for a while to get basic customer experience- the thing is- when businesses compete- everyone wins. The minimum wage takes that competition away. Now, low level jobs have one rate of pay-the government stipulated minimum. What about the new mom and pop place? They can't afford to pay people minimum wage yet, they are barely off the floor. If they could offer some people entry level experience and less pay, then they could try and get their business going. But they can't. Working for them is just like working for anybody else, same pay. So they can't buy better ingredients. They can't give the good employees raises, or offer more to get a better employee- they have to pay everyone the minimum, and it can put them out of business.

Hrmm I shall copy and paste my response to your thoughts from that thread then...

The word minimum is important here, any less is not an acceptable amount to live on, if you remove the minimum wage then thousands of low paid workers will be forced into poverty with no hope of ever improving their situation because they can barely afford to live. Yes it will hurt some small businesses but it is not acceptable to allow them to pay any less than a minimum wage. The only solution is to increase taxation for everyone and give low paid workers extra benefit, though I suspect you will be equally if not more opposed to this.

Yes minimum wage laws could concievable lead to price rises, but this is not necessarily the case. Most corporations have huge profit margins, they could easily charge less (or pay workers more) and still make a profit, however, capitalism leads to them extracting the maximum profit possible at the expense of both workers and consumers and for this reason vital services should all be nationalised so that they can be provided as a service rather than for profit and are free of the corrupting influence of the market.

Of course there is still the problem of small business losing out, but I believe that is a price worth paying to ensure no one has to live in poverty and everyone has the right to things like free education, healthcare etc. These are only short terms of course, ultimatly I would like to see capitalism totally abolished.

You could also concievably get around the problem of small enterprises going out of business by compensating them in some way if they are unable to pay workers a decent wage, this would have to be at the expense of high income earners and large corporations, though I have no problem at all with that, since capitalism is such an unfair system there is no way that they can deserve to be so rich at the expense of so many disadvantaged people.

Ok, I am going to copy and paste my thoughts on the minimum wage from another thread here...

Once upon a time I disagreed with the concept of abolishing the minimum wage too, but then someone (who will remain nameless but she is a libertarian politician) gave me an example that I thought made sense, so I did more research and she was right. The minimum wage doesn't prop people up- it keeps them down. Here is why:
1. Although you would think that raising the minimum wage would give people a better lifestyle, it doesn't. Why? Inflation. The higher you raise it, the more things cost. It is that simple. The only people that benefit from a higher minimum wage are students still living with their parents, as it gives them more disposable income, as the price of CD's doesn't go up as fast as things like rent do.
2. The example I was told: (the descriptions of fast food places are examples only, don't have a cow if you think one is better than the other, and I am not insulting people that work there- but I am still not telling who told me this just in case)
Ok, lets discuss three fast food restaurants. We have a Wendy's, a McDonald's, and a Hardee's. With a minimum wage law, all three are going to offer the same wage- the minimum. This is a low skill job, and they pay acordingly. They may pay 50 cents more or whatever once you've been there a year or so, but it is negligable. However, if there was no minimum wage level, they would have to pay differently. They would have to compete for the better workers, even at this low skill level. So say that McDonald's is content to pay the least- their burgers are the cheapest, they use the worst ingredients, and they will take what workers they can get because customers don't expect much. They still make a profit because they hire cheap labor. Hardee's pays a little more. Their burgers require a little effort to make. You may be required to have experience to work there, and you better not have a nosering- why? Because the pay is higher, the burgers cost more, and the customers want better service. Wendy's is even better- they pay more still- why? The corporation has strict rules about employee conduct- you have to be cleancut to work there- after all, people are paying more for a cleaner place to get food. You don't want someone's hair falling in it. Because they want the better employees, they have to offer more. They also require more- you may have had to work at one of the others for a while to get basic customer experience- the thing is- when businesses compete- everyone wins. The minimum wage takes that competition away. Now, low level jobs have one rate of pay-the government stipulated minimum. What about the new mom and pop place? They can't afford to pay people minimum wage yet, they are barely off the floor. If they could offer some people entry level experience and less pay, then they could try and get their business going. But they can't. Working for them is just like working for anybody else, same pay. So they can't buy better ingredients. They can't give the good employees raises, or offer more to get a better employee- they have to pay everyone the minimum, and it can put them out of business.

1. We are not talking here of increasing a minimum wage but of establishing one. Moreover, a wage is paid to someone who works...if a student is living with (on?) his parents it is very likely that he'she is not working and thereby is not entitled to a minimum wage. If he is working then it is because he/she needs the money and will therefore not "waste" it on cds.

2. Inflation is not very much effected by a minimum wage as much as it is by other factors by far more relevant than that.

2. If you read the proposal correctly you will realise that it provides employers, rather it encourages employers to offer any rate of pay to their employees in accordance with whatever their market positioning demands, as long as it is not below a certain minimum. The minimum wage will not eliminate competition, rather it would provide a level playing field within which competition may prevail. They will not be able to compete on the basis of entry level pay packets, but rather on the basis of quality of product and service. At the end of the day that is what really matters.

Moreover, this minimum will have to be established in relation to economic conditions. Thus it would not be too high such that to prohibit your mom&pop place to operate. If they have a good product they would be able to compete and afford their workers. If they cannot and do not have the capital to absorb some initial losses until they are established then might as well that they do not enter into business.

You may wish to consult your libertinarian friend once more.

Minimum-wage laws are wrong.

First, they violate the right of individuals to make agreements between themselves without any external influence or force.

Second, they violate the right of property owners to use their property as they choose.

Please note:

1. The proposal is not precluding anyone from making any arrangements, on the contrary. It is only establishing a base in reference to which arrangments will have to be made.

2. What property are you talking about? Workers - property owners' property? Otherwise, what right of property is being restrained? As with any other market you have demand and supply and there is a price attached to it. A minimum wage secures that the STARTING price reflects the basic utility of that factor of production. Remember, you should be believeing that nothing comes for free. Well not even the workers. A minimum wage seeks to secure that.

Um. Minimum wage? Sorry, but my currency is bottlecaps, not 'dolhares' or whatever. If you want to convert that, feel free. I love any money.

I appeal to all those who have voiced their favourable opinion on this proposal. Please APPROVE this proposal. Unless you do not approve it, it will never make it onto the table of the decision makers-the regional delegates.

Show your support to the idea in a concrete way. Give your approval and solicit the approval of others!

Thank you all.

This is wrong. It violates the rights of dictators and non-democratic or representative countries. If someone is willing to work, let them be competative about it. I suppose you'll want to make unions manditory next.

I believe that the minium is a good thing but it SHOULD NOT be a UN thing. I believe that each individual country shoudl set there own wage.

I believe that the minium is a good thing but it SHOULD NOT be a UN thing. I believe that each individual country shoudl set there own wage.
I agree. I once thought the minimum wage was a good idea, but it's really up to each nation to decide. Frigben has no minimum wage laws.

Usually a minimum wage should be set, as has been said, at the lowest possible amount that still offers a livable life. otherwise the poor are kept in economic slavery as their emplyers give them *just* enough to survive. Then they can't quit because if it is a few days before they get another job, they have no food, and soon have no rent. this is worse if they are fired. by the way, Saturn Valley has no need of a minimum wage, as all companies are run by the government, and strictly monitored.

I believe that the minium is a good thing but it SHOULD NOT be a UN thing. I believe that each individual country shoudl set there own wage.

As a matter of fact the proposal leaves it up to the individual member nations to set the level of the minimum wage. The purpose of passing it through the UN is to ensure that the necessary legal framework is established by UN member nations.

Hrmm I think it should go further and should be enforced at an acceptable level by the UN. The UN has a duty to ensure basic human rights are enforced in member nations.

I feel there has to be a fairly reasonable minimum wage, or the hard working but unskilled workers will be exploited.

The Protectorate of Last Exile has a current minimum wage of:

67,000 Madox Yen Sterling
[£5.69p]
This applies to workers over the age of 16 but under the age of 21+

47,100 MDYS
Applies to workers over the Age of 21+

This minimum figure will drop to

35,325 MDYS

After the age of 30+

Our policy is that once you passed the initial age of 21+

you should be able to work to get a substantially better pay then the minimum wage.

It will also deter citzens who wish to do the minimum amount of effort and work and expect to survive all their lives on it.

Princept of Finance & Economy [Council of Exile]

Can we get a comment from someone who knows anything about economics?

Poorly thought out idea. Next?

I do. I've finished Intermediate Macro. I'm kinda tired of writing the same thing over but since I can't find my previous posts I guess I'll have to:

In a pure lasseiz-faire system, prices are set by forces known as "supply" and "demand". In the case of labor, the "suppliers" are the workers, the "demanders" are the businesses, and the "price" is the worker's wage. In addition, there is a fourth value called a "quantity" which determines how many workers get hired. This is also determined by supply and demand. The supply and demand thing works like this:

When supply increases but demand remains constant, price decreases and quantity increases
When demand increases but supply remains constant, price increases and quantity increases
Flip that around for when supply or demand decrease. This is a lot easier to demonstrate with graphs, but I'm not going to use them.

Now the resulting intersection of supply and demand is called the "equilibrium price" or in this case the "equilibrium wage". That is the best possible price for the good that both employer and employee is willing to agree on. It is also the most economically efficienct. Under it, neither side has surplus nor deficit. All workers who want to find a job are employed. All employers who need workers have them. This is of course under perfect theoretical conditions. But even in real life the effects are similiar, though imperfect. Now, there are ways of artificially increasing or lowering the price of a good above or below the "equilibrium price". There can be corporate collusion, there can also be the minimum wage. Now normally what happens when the price of a good is set above or below the equilibrium price is that the market works naturally to adjust it back to the equilibrium price, i.e. the colluding corporations go bankrupt and a third becomes the market-dominant one. But since hte government exerts such a tremendous influence on the market using, really blood and iron, the market is unable to adjust. In this case, the result is:

Lost producer (worker) surplus. This surplus is different from surplus as in "just having more than needed". In fact, I don't know why it is called surplus at all. Just makes economists sound cool I guess. But anyways, what happens is in this case, the price increases (from the equilibrium wage to the minimum wage), however the quantity decreases proportional to the price increase. Now normally quantity decrease wouldn't matter. But, in this case, the number of workers unemployed becomes equal to the SQUARE of the decrease in quantity demanded (the proof for this requires some weird sort of calculus-based economics, which I have not had, do not understand, and probably never will have, so I will not try to explain it). So in other words, theoretically, the number of workers unemployed directly varies with relation to the square of the difference between the equilibrium wage and the minimum wage.

As well, the lost producer surplus hurts businesses as well. This prevents businesses from effectively expanding to increase demand for workers. Increasing demand would increase both Wages and the Number of Jobs. Because the minimum wage prevents this, in the long run wages stagnate and decrease due to inflation. So the minimum wage hurts everyone.

In addition, there is a third effect of minimum wage not addressed by the standard supply and demand model, that is the creation of a black market. Basically a black market is an illegal job. If you mow your neighbor's lawn for $4/hour, that is a black market job. If you are an illegal immigrant from Mexico who is working for a Chinese Californian farmer for $4.50/hour, that is a black market job. The problem with black market contracts is that they cannot be enforced by law. If the employer refuses to pay you, you can't do anything about it since the law doesn't recognize that you had the job or that your employer refused to pay you. This of course drastically increases the crime rate, especially white-collar crime such as fraud, embezzelment, etc.

Of course, none of this matters if the minimum wage is below the equilibrium wage, as is the case with 99% of jobs. In this situation, the minimum wage is simply ignored.

The minimum wage is well-intentioned but economically unsound. Its mechanism is not different from the mechanism New York used when trying to control rent prices. It is simply a price control applied to labour.

If the minimum wage is really what the idealistic socialists crack it up to be, then they can just set it to say $1 trillion and we'd all be filthy rich.

As I have stated before, the best way to increase both wages and the number of jobs is by the natural economic way. According to the New Growth Theory, technology makes the amount of economic growth possible infinite, thus the economy can always grow. Letting the invisible hand take over, we are letting companies increase their demand for workers, which as I have demonstrated increases both wages AND jobs.

Urgh your faith in the "invisible hand" is really very scary. Still busy now so proper answer later.

So is your faith in the government.

"Put not your trust in kings or prices, a three of a kind will take them both."
--Robert Schenck

Unfortunately, the invisible hand you talk about is really invisible sometimes and fails to work when it should.

Similarly, you speak a lot about theories, in reality things work out differently. Economic Theories are there to illustrate the workings of an economy...however based on the ceteris paribus principle. However as you know things rarely remain equal, which renders a lot of the theories, well, just theories.

One can mention the famous natural rate of unemployment...how much natural is natural in unemployment?

Secondly, you should confront all those millions of people who lost much of their wealth during the burst of the technology balloon. Technology no doubt gives a great impetus to enhanced productivity, however not to an endless economic expansion cycle as you imply. Moreover, technology is often responsible for a number of considerable layoffs. There does not seem to be established a balance between the expansionary potential of technology as opposed to the "redundancy effect" it has on workers and jobs.

Having said that, you should view a minimum wage as setting a floor for wages. By all means, demand and supply (market forces) will be allowed to reach their own equilibrium.

Unfortunately, the invisible hand you talk about is really invisible sometimes and fails to work when it should.

Similarly, you speak a lot about theories, in reality things work out differently. Economic Theories are there to illustrate the workings of an economy...however based on the ceteris paribus principle. However as you know things rarely remain equal, which renders a lot of the theories, well, just theories.

One can mention the famous natural rate of unemployment...how much natural is natural in unemployment?

Secondly, you should confront all those millions of people who lost much of their wealth during the burst of the technology balloon. Technology no doubt gives a great impetus to enhanced productivity, however not to an endless economic expansion cycle as you imply. Moreover, technology is often responsible for a number of considerable layoffs. There does not seem to be established a balance between the expansionary potential of technology as opposed to the "redundancy effect" it has on workers and jobs.

Having said that, you should view a minimum wage as setting a floor for wages. By all means, demand and supply (market forces) will be allowed to reach their own equilibrium.

If the floor of wages is above the equilibrium, that would be kind of stupid.

Natural unemployment is a concept used to describe a situation in where there is no structural or frictional unemployment. All unemployment in a state of natural unemployment is related to cyclical reasons, that is fluctuations in the Real GDP compared to the Potential GDP.

Uhm... not to be a wet blanket, but the establishment of an international minimum wage would be dependant on the cost of living within each country, wouldn't it? We pay no income tax, so it is difficult to compare salaries of our country with salaries in a country with 50% income tax.

A minimum wage is clearly in the best interests of everyone.

West Islands is in favour of as much government intervention in the economy as possible. This is necessary to protect the most vulnerable workers in society, and prevent the the ugly excesses of capitalism.

Here, here.

Uhm... not to be a wet blanket, but the establishment of an international minimum wage would be dependant on the cost of living within each country, wouldn't it? We pay no income tax, so it is difficult to compare salaries of our country with salaries in a country with 50% income tax.

The proposal is not for an international minimum wage across the board but rather for all nations to enact legislation that provides for the establishment of a minimum wage. This will then be established and set by each nation in accordance with its own specific economic situation

I'm all for a minimum wage. It's just the minimum wage in the Oppressed Possums is zero.

Jim Carey's minimum wage is $20,000,000.

Jim Carey's minimum wage is $20,000,000.

We're not all Jim Carey. If we were, we would have massive inflation and it would take 1,000,000 or even 10,000,000 to buy a loaf of bread.

Frankly, although the idea behind it is fundamentally evil, if this were passed then it would have no practical effect, because all moral nations could just set the minimum wage at an infinitely low negative amount, as it is already.

A "below-equilibrium-wage-minimum-wage" as my econ teacher put it once.

The Un proposal should include a value for the minimum calculated based on GDP and population!what our capiutalist friend have wilfully ignored,is that,while money hoarded by the bourgeoisise is unlikely to be spent in its entirety,thus causing a "black hole" in the economy,which the primitive capitalists plug up with massive inflation,wages will be reinvested in the economy,providing more stable and reliable growth.

Good wages raise the national standard of living and boost consumption.
Henry Ford paid his workers more than the going rate because he reasoned that he had many workers and if they were well paid they would buy his cars. He was right.
Minimum is not "high", it's minimal. Countries who want higher standards can enforce or encourage them. Countries who want lower standards are stealing wealth and productivity from the more advanced nations.

It just can't work. Like I said it should be up to the indivdual country. If you set a standrad minium wage there will be countries that economincally can not handle it and thier ecominy could crash. If you countries ecnomy crashes then that can start a domino effect and other countries will follow. I can not endorse this.


President West
UN delgate

Good wages raise the national standard of living and boost consumption.
Henry Ford paid his workers more than the going rate because he reasoned that he had many workers and if they were well paid they would buy his cars. He was right.
Minimum is not "high", it's minimal. Countries who want higher standards can enforce or encourage them. Countries who want lower standards are stealing wealth and productivity from the more advanced nations.

Ford paid them their equilibrium wage. Your argument would only apply IF everyone made the minimum wage. THe higher you set the minimum wage the more people will be stuck on it. The lower you set the minimum wage the less people will live on it. The minimum wage is NOT an indicator of average income. Germany for example has a much higher minimum wage than the US, which has a comparable per capita economy, but consequently Germany's average wage is lower than the US's.

your all a bunch of commie morons

your all a bunch of commie morons

All of us?

Good wages raise the national standard of living and boost consumption.
Henry Ford paid his workers more than the going rate because he reasoned that he had many workers and if they were well paid they would buy his cars. He was right.
Minimum is not "high", it's minimal. Countries who want higher standards can enforce or encourage them. Countries who want lower standards are stealing wealth and productivity from the more advanced nations.

Ford paid them their equilibrium wage. Your argument would only apply IF everyone made the minimum wage. THe higher you set the minimum wage the more people will be stuck on it. The lower you set the minimum wage the less people will live on it. The minimum wage is NOT an indicator of average income. Germany for example has a much higher minimum wage than the US, which has a comparable per capita economy, but consequently Germany's average wage is lower than the US's.
from that i can mathematically deduce higher unemplyment in the US.

your all a bunch of commie morons
oh yeah,and i guess you can come up with a good reason to say that,or have you been pshycochemicaly lobotomized by prolonged exposure to US media and lifestyle?

So, I could presumably set the minimum wage in my country to what would be effectively $0.01/hour, as long as I have one?

It's a conspiracy by THE MAN

While economic theory does show that wage prices will reach a stable equilibrium level, the pimary flaw to the theory is that it does not account for survival costs. Survival cost is just what it sounds like--the amount of money that it costs for a party (a person, a family, or a company) to maintain its existance. Let's say that the equilibrium wage rate of the moment is $2.00 per day. Let's also say that the survival cost is $3.00 per person per day. That means that our laborer needs $1.00 per day more to live on than he can earn.

Now here is the interesting part. Economic theory says that our laborer should hold out for a higher wage--that is, he should exit the job pool, resulting in a reduction in the labor supply, which would create pressure for wages to rise. HOWEVER, in reality he can not do that because he will starve if he has no job and no income. Thus, he will take the $2.00 a day job because half a loaf is better than none.

As you can see above, the simple supply/demand model is insufficient when you have demands that are "rigid"--that is, when a party (consumer or company) can not function without consuming some good or service (an example of a rigid demand for service is transportation--you HAVE to get to work every day. Food is a good example of a rigid demand for goods).

Wouldn't that drive the price of food down then?

Good wages raise the national standard of living and boost consumption.
Henry Ford paid his workers more than the going rate because he reasoned that he had many workers and if they were well paid they would buy his cars. He was right.
Minimum is not "high", it's minimal. Countries who want higher standards can enforce or encourage them. Countries who want lower standards are stealing wealth and productivity from the more advanced nations.

Ford paid them their equilibrium wage. Your argument would only apply IF everyone made the minimum wage. THe higher you set the minimum wage the more people will be stuck on it. The lower you set the minimum wage the less people will live on it. The minimum wage is NOT an indicator of average income. Germany for example has a much higher minimum wage than the US, which has a comparable per capita economy, but consequently Germany's average wage is lower than the US's.
from that i can mathematically deduce higher unemplyment in the US.

Now you can't, you can deduce a higher income gap in the US.

Germany has higher unemployment because of minimum wage.

While economic theory does show that wage prices will reach a stable equilibrium level, the pimary flaw to the theory is that it does not account for survival costs. Survival cost is just what it sounds like--the amount of money that it costs for a party (a person, a family, or a company) to maintain its existance. Let's say that the equilibrium wage rate of the moment is $2.00 per day. Let's also say that the survival cost is $3.00 per person per day. That means that our laborer needs $1.00 per day more to live on than he can earn.

Now here is the interesting part. Economic theory says that our laborer should hold out for a higher wage--that is, he should exit the job pool, resulting in a reduction in the labor supply, which would create pressure for wages to rise. HOWEVER, in reality he can not do that because he will starve if he has no job and no income. Thus, he will take the $2.00 a day job because half a loaf is better than none.

As you can see above, the simple supply/demand model is insufficient when you have demands that are "rigid"--that is, when a party (consumer or company) can not function without consuming some good or service (an example of a rigid demand for service is transportation--you HAVE to get to work every day. Food is a good example of a rigid demand for goods).

Economy theory also states that equilibrium wages will rise when the price of other goods rise. It's called inflation :).

Good wages raise the national standard of living and boost consumption.
Henry Ford paid his workers more than the going rate because he reasoned that he had many workers and if they were well paid they would buy his cars. He was right.
Minimum is not "high", it's minimal. Countries who want higher standards can enforce or encourage them. Countries who want lower standards are stealing wealth and productivity from the more advanced nations.

Ford paid them their equilibrium wage. Your argument would only apply IF everyone made the minimum wage. THe higher you set the minimum wage the more people will be stuck on it. The lower you set the minimum wage the less people will live on it. The minimum wage is NOT an indicator of average income. Germany for example has a much higher minimum wage than the US, which has a comparable per capita economy, but consequently Germany's average wage is lower than the US's.
from that i can mathematically deduce higher unemplyment in the US.

Now you can't, you can deduce a higher income gap in the US.

Germany has higher unemployment because of minimum wage.
i can,unless youre taking unemployed people into account for average "wage",even thought payments to the unemployed are called welfare.

oh,and btw-the last i checked the markets(yuk!yuk!) France and Germany,who both have relatively high minimum wages,had roughly 4 time more economic growth than the Evil Empire.judge for yourself ;)

oh,and btw-the last i checked the markets(yuk!yuk!) France and Germany,who both have relatively high minimum wages,had roughly 4 time more economic growth than the Evil Empire.judge for yourself ;)

Care to show us where you come up with this number? Or should we just take your word for it?

ooooo The evil empire...funny name.

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??

oh,and btw-the last i checked the markets(yuk!yuk!) France and Germany,who both have relatively high minimum wages,had roughly 4 time more economic growth than the Evil Empire.judge for yourself ;)

Care to show us where you come up with this number? Or should we just take your word for it?
i took it from the last economic news page i read in Le Monde ;)

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??
i would suggest 40% of GDP per capita,it's still fairly low while guaranteeing that the large corporations practially running certain nations do not practice virtual slave-labor.

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??
i would suggest 40% of GDP per capita,it's still fairly low while guaranteeing that the large corporations practially running certain nations do not practice virtual slave-labor.

USA's GDP per capita is about $35,000.

40% of that $14,000. Converted to a per hour basis (250-day schedule, though that is a bit longer than average, which is about 240-day or less and 8-hour-day) is: $7 an hour. That's not exactly "low".

There shouldn't be a minimum wage, but if there is you should set it differently for each industry. 20-25% of PC-GDP is good generally.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage, but if there is you should set it differently for each industry. 20-25% of PC-GDP is good generally.

There should be a minimum wage but it is up to the indivdual country not by the UN. Certain nation's ecomonies may not be able to last if the wage is the same across the board.

well if it is up to the individual nation to set a minimum wage then i'm all for it as this bill now means nothing. 1 cent and hour minimum for my people :)

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??
i would suggest 40% of GDP per capita,it's still fairly low while guaranteeing that the large corporations practially running certain nations do not practice virtual slave-labor.

More realistic would be a minimium wage that is tied to the poverty line. Take the cost of all of the things that are considered essential to live--basic food, housing, etc. The combined cost of those things makes up the poverty level--anybody living on less would be forced to choose between food and medical treatment for example.

Now, any person who works full time should be able to earn at least this amount (and the definition of "full time" can vary from nation to nation as long as employees are not worked to exhaustion--let's say hypothetically that eighty-four hours a week is the max--that's twelve hours every day). Therefore the minimum allowed wage should be set at just above this poverty level. Let me clarify: the minimum wage for an adult. It is still within reason for a teenager or apprentice to be paid a bit less (but not drastically less).

The most glaring issue with this proposal is that the UN has no place in determining the economic framework of my, or any!, country. For the past 4 centuries, our stunning country has survived without the suggestions of the rest of you. Whereas it is necessary for there to be healthy lines of communication among us all and some rules to promote the continuance of the global community, it should not be the position of the UN to dictate how the economy of its member nations works. Within your country, or perhaps your region, feel free to waste a nation's time on this nonsense. Gimbala shall give people what their skills earn them. No more and no less. Please refrain from attempting to run my country for me.

The most glaring issue with this proposal is that the UN has no place in determining the economic framework of my, or any!, country. For the past 4 centuries, our stunning country has survived without the suggestions of the rest of you. Whereas it is necessary for there to be healthy lines of communication among us all and some rules to promote the continuance of the global community, it should not be the position of the UN to dictate how the economy of its member nations works. Within your country, or perhaps your region, feel free to waste a nation's time on this nonsense. Gimbala shall give people what their skills earn them. No more and no less. Please refrain from attempting to run my country for me.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There is no such thing as "the right to a decent wage" because there is no such thing as "the right to enslave".

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??
i would suggest 40% of GDP per capita,it's still fairly low while guaranteeing that the large corporations practially running certain nations do not practice virtual slave-labor.

USA's GDP per capita is about $35,000.

40% of that $14,000. Converted to a per hour basis (250-day schedule, though that is a bit longer than average, which is about 240-day or less and 8-hour-day) is: $7 an hour. That's not exactly "low".

There shouldn't be a minimum wage, but if there is you should set it differently for each industry. 20-25% of PC-GDP is good generally.
in the People's Republic of Cirdanistan,unemployment(note that this is only on paper;we have yet to face a case where we actually paid it out,sinc eour cureent unemployment rate is 0%) is 80% PC-GDP so....
[OOC:the reason it would be high in the US,is because the US is rich....tho 7$ is only lghtly above the current french minimum wage]

What is the minimum wage going to be, and how will we know it is right for all nations??
i would suggest 40% of GDP per capita,it's still fairly low while guaranteeing that the large corporations practially running certain nations do not practice virtual slave-labor.

USA's GDP per capita is about $35,000.

40% of that $14,000. Converted to a per hour basis (250-day schedule, though that is a bit longer than average, which is about 240-day or less and 8-hour-day) is: $7 an hour. That's not exactly "low".

There shouldn't be a minimum wage, but if there is you should set it differently for each industry. 20-25% of PC-GDP is good generally.
in the People's Republic of Cirdanistan,unemployment(note that this is only on paper;we have yet to face a case where we actually paid it out,sinc eour cureent unemployment rate is 0%) is 80% PC-GDP so....
[OOC:the reason it would be high in the US,is because the US is rich....tho 7$ is only lghtly above the current french minimum wage]

My nation also has no unemployment. The per capita income is $100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and everyone has their own flying rabbits to ride to work. Note sarcasm.

i'm a socialist-note that event eh imperfect application of socialist principles in the USSR achieved 0 unemployment.

i'm a socialist-note that event eh imperfect application of socialist principles in the USSR achieved 0 unemployment.

That's because all the unemployed people were either sent to Siberian work camps or shot.

if you consider the population of the USSR,and the ammount of epople shot/deported,and the growth of pop over the period of shootings:deportations,that's actully failry minor.Besides,if you send somebody to a labor camp then they wouldve been hried to do the job if they wernt being made to do it punitevely,idiot.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

Since when is making money a basic human right?

Your ideological views are not the same as mine. Becasuse of this, I should get out of the UN? Illogical, condescending and hypocritcal. The UN is here to give us fair representation for our countries, not to convert them to your political beliefs.

Finally, when the economy of your country has a status of imploded, perhaps you shouldn't recommend economic policies to another country.

if you consider the population of the USSR,and the ammount of epople shot/deported,and the growth of pop over the period of shootings:deportations,that's actully failry minor.Besides,if you send somebody to a labor camp then they wouldve been hried to do the job if they wernt being made to do it punitevely,idiot.

Okay, so fifty, sixty million is fairly minor. Got it.

And if they were hired to do the job they would have to be paid. So either lower wages for everyone, or they can't get hired. In a work camp, you just have to keep them alive.

Typical socialist lunacy...insistent on forcing their views down everyone else's throats rather than letting people live their lives as they want so long as they extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

Please don't confuse Wolomy with facts.... remember Symbolism over Substance.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

You are horribly mistaken here. "Decent Wage" is not a right, it is something that you earn. A "right" is something that you are entitled to for free, not something that you must earn.

People often have this mistaken notion about their "rights." The reality of the situation is that you have only the privileges that you or your ancestors earned, and you can just as easily lose it if you don't continue to earn them.

Some people will throw out that line "What about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?". These people are horribly brainwashed.

Life is something that you might have, but it is not something that you have a right to. If you think you do, try telling it to the murderer who is about to gut you. You could try to tell him about what you are entitled to, or you could run as fast as you can and EARN the privilege of living. Better yet, try telling the guys on Flight 93 about the "right to life".

Liberty is something that people have had to fight for for centuries. Nuff said.

And the Pursuit of Happiness...well, you got me there. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, but that doesn't mean that you'll get it. Work hard, and you might earn it though.

People need to get this silly notion out of their head that they have "rights." Whoever came up with this idea that decent wage is a right is living in the sort of dream world that Marx envisioned. There is no such thing as rights. You get what you earn.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

Check out mine. My economy is so good it's "Frightening!" :wink:

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

Check out mine. My economy is so good it's "Frightening!" :wink:

Mine is too dude... Lots of peoples are... I'm just comparing it to Wolomy.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

Since when is making money a basic human right?

Your ideological views are not the same as mine. Becasuse of this, I should get out of the UN? Illogical, condescending and hypocritcal. The UN is here to give us fair representation for our countries, not to convert them to your political beliefs.

Finally, when the economy of your country has a status of imploded, perhaps you shouldn't recommend economic policies to another country.
making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemployment payments.Also,id liek to point out that many socialist countries wiht suposedly imploded economies can guarantee better standards of living to their citizens that some frighteningly rich capitalist countries-this was exemplified by the recent UN survey of public helthcare,where many countries with imploded and basket case economies turned out to be better ranked than the big powerhouses-maybe you should trust less to UN economy ratings(which are biased in favor of capitalist states) and mroe to the acual standards of living before judging oh how well countries are managed?

People DO have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

That means those rights cannot be taken away JUSTLY without due process of law.

A murderer might gut you, but he has violated an inalienable right, hence he is unjust.

People DO have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

That means those rights cannot be taken away JUSTLY without due process of law.

A murderer might gut you, but he has violated an inalienable right, hence he is unjust.

The concept of inalienable rights was first designed as a check on state power, i.e. a legitimate government can't take away your right to life, liberty or property. And if a government becomes illegitimate, then "it puts itself at a state of war with the people, who are thereupon released from any further obligation to obedience and left to the common refuge which God has provided for all men against force and fraud." --Locke

In other words, if government violates an inalienable right without due process of law or a hell of a good reason (you were shooting at policemen, so in self-defense the policemen violated your right to life without due process by shooting you), revolution becomes justified.

People DO have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

That means those rights cannot be taken away JUSTLY without due process of law.

A murderer might gut you, but he has violated an inalienable right, hence he is unjust. property is not a right;it's a form of oppression.

making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemployment payments.

No, they aren't. You see, such things must be produced somehow--they won't appear out of thin air. Reality works that way--it's called a "trade-off", or "opportunity cost". Since they must be produced, there must be someone to do the producing. If no one can be found to do the producing, then if you're going to make these kind of guarantees and follow through on them you must force people to do the producing--in other words, you must make them into slaves. And there is no such thing as "the right to enslave".

Or maybe you have no problem finding people to do it, as long as they're paid to do it--maybe you can just hire out companies or entities that do this as their ordinary course of business, and so they will just be another customer. Fine. But how do you intend to pay them, if you can't find anyone willing to foot the bill voluntarily? Once again, you must resort to force. You must force people to give up what's theirs for the sake of others--meaning that once again, you have created slaves.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

Emphasis added in case you did not notice.

Your nation does have an impressive economy and I notice a rather large arms manufacturing sector, I wonder what this is doing you your libertarian paradise, what possible need could business have for arms if all war is the result of evil government?
I notice also that in your nation the unemployed and working classes are "starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases". Then there is your crime problem to deal with and more importantly the fact that you allow unsustainable exploitation of the environment the result of which being that one day your nation will fall.

The economic rating is deceptive in a nation which has abolished capitalism, yes there is very little money but since the people do not work for money this is rather meaningless.

making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemployment payments.

No, they aren't. You see, such things must be produced somehow--they won't appear out of thin air. Reality works that way--it's called a "trade-off", or "opportunity cost". Since they must be produced, there must be someone to do the producing. If no one can be found to do the producing, then if you're going to make these kind of guarantees and follow through on them you must force people to do the producing--in other words, you must make them into slaves. And there is no such thing as "the right to enslave".

Or maybe you have no problem finding people to do it, as long as they're paid to do it--maybe you can just hire out companies or entities that do this as their ordinary course of business, and so they will just be another customer. Fine. But how do you intend to pay them, if you can't find anyone willing to foot the bill voluntarily? Once again, you must resort to force. You must force people to give up what's theirs for the sake of others--meaning that once again, you have created slaves.
as youve said,it's a trade-off:the State guarantees youre rights;you guarantee the State by furnishing labor,military service,administration(i.e. politics),etc....

Emphasis added in case you did not notice.

Your nation does have an impressive economy and I notice a rather large arms manufacturing sector, I wonder what this is doing you your libertarian paradise, what possible need could business have for arms if all war is the result of evil government?
I notice also that in your nation the unemployed and working classes are "starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases". Then there is your crime problem to deal with and more importantly the fact that you allow unsustainable exploitation of the environment the result of which being that one day your nation will fall.

The economic rating is deceptive in a nation which has abolished capitalism, yes there is very little money but since the people do not work for money this is rather meaningless.

But in Wolomy World the people are "slaves" to the state and those in charge. They must succumb to the whims of the state and follow orders dictated by who is in charge. All in Wolomy are equal...or are some more equal than others?

In Wolomy world there is no form of innovation...why would there be? There is no incentive to do more than what is asked of you.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

Since when is making money a basic human right?

Your ideological views are not the same as mine. Becasuse of this, I should get out of the UN? Illogical, condescending and hypocritcal. The UN is here to give us fair representation for our countries, not to convert them to your political beliefs.

Finally, when the economy of your country has a status of imploded, perhaps you shouldn't recommend economic policies to another country.

making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemplyment payments.

Once again, these are not rights. They are privileges that you earn. A lazy person who does nothing to earn his wage doesn't have the "right" to decent housing, food, and clothing. Similarly, a lion that doesn't get out there and hunt for his food does not have the right to be fed.

A capitalist society is a competitive society, and as such, it requires people to work hard to stay ahead. If people don't do what needs to be done, they fall by the wayside. Natural selections runs its course. I guarantee, though, that a society that runs on this principle will advance faster than a society that does not. That's why America has gone from 13 small colonies to the most powerful nation in the world in only 200 years. The fit survive and thrive, the rest fall by the wayside.

Every person has opportunities and choices that they have to make every day of their lives. their status is the consequence of this choices. If they decide to buy a stereo when they have trouble paying the rent, they deserve to get booted onto the street. If they decide to not work (and anybody who is able to wash dishes can get a job) and save up their money, they don't deserve to be raised out of their station in life. If someone didn't prepare themselves and suddenly their source of income goes away, it's their own fault.

You only (and I hesitate to use this word) DESERVE what you earn. You only have the right to those things that you have earned. Your life is what you make it.

If anybody out there thinks that "some people just aren't capable of finding a job," I want you to look up William H. Macy. If he can thrive, anybody can.

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

Since when is making money a basic human right?

Your ideological views are not the same as mine. Becasuse of this, I should get out of the UN? Illogical, condescending and hypocritcal. The UN is here to give us fair representation for our countries, not to convert them to your political beliefs.

Finally, when the economy of your country has a status of imploded, perhaps you shouldn't recommend economic policies to another country.

making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemplyment payments.

Once again, these are not rights. They are privileges that you earn. A lazy person who does nothing to earn his wage doesn't have the "right" to decent housing, food, and clothing. i thought u supported the right to life?without food people DIE!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

Emphasis added in case you did not notice.

Your nation does have an impressive economy and I notice a rather large arms manufacturing sector, I wonder what this is doing you your libertarian paradise, what possible need could business have for arms if all war is the result of evil government?
I notice also that in your nation the unemployed and working classes are "starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases". Then there is your crime problem to deal with and more importantly the fact that you allow unsustainable exploitation of the environment the result of which being that one day your nation will fall.

The economic rating is deceptive in a nation which has abolished capitalism, yes there is very little money but since the people do not work for money this is rather meaningless.

But in Wolomy World the people are "slaves" to the state and those in charge. They must succumb to the whims of the state and follow orders dictated by who is in charge. All in Wolomy are equal...or are some more equal than others?

In Wolomy world there is no form of innovation...why would there be? There is no incentive to do more than what is asked of you.

In Wolomy World you must beg the mighty Wolomy...”Sir may I please have another bowl of soup...please sir.”

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

There isn't a decent wage in your Nation Wolomy. Your economy has imploded and the tax rate is 100%...i.e. Your citizens have no money, no minimum wage, no liberty or freedom from Government oversight. :roll:

Good point, how can you haev a decent wage.... or a wage at all if your tax rate is 100%?

Wolomy our nations have about equal populations. Why my nation's economy is extremely powerful and my citizens enjoy much more civil freedoms than in your nation, your citizens have no money or liberty. :P

Emphasis added in case you did not notice.

Your nation does have an impressive economy and I notice a rather large arms manufacturing sector, I wonder what this is doing you your libertarian paradise, what possible need could business have for arms if all war is the result of evil government?
I notice also that in your nation the unemployed and working classes are "starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases". Then there is your crime problem to deal with and more importantly the fact that you allow unsustainable exploitation of the environment the result of which being that one day your nation will fall.

The economic rating is deceptive in a nation which has abolished capitalism, yes there is very little money but since the people do not work for money this is rather meaningless.

I don't have much of an army. I was in the bottom third for military funding. My arms manufacturers sell their weapons mostly to civilians and foreign nations. It's diplomacy by checkbook.

You know two of the biggest small arms producing countries in the world are Switzerland and Sweden. Neither have been in a war since 1815.

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

A right to do something is not a guarantee that you will be able to do it...it simply means you won't be punished for doing it as long as you respect others' rights in the process (including property rights).

no wonder he has so much crime!everybody has a gun!it must be MurderFest,inc. over there!

IF you don't like the UN interfering then stay out of it. The UN has a duty to ensure everyone has basic human rights, in capitalist countries this can include the right to a decent wage.

Since when is making money a basic human right?

Your ideological views are not the same as mine. Becasuse of this, I should get out of the UN? Illogical, condescending and hypocritcal. The UN is here to give us fair representation for our countries, not to convert them to your political beliefs.

Finally, when the economy of your country has a status of imploded, perhaps you shouldn't recommend economic policies to another country.

making money isnt-but decent housing,decent eating,and clothing yourself adequately are basic human rights which many capitalist countries refuse to grant to tehir citizens,by allowing low wages and little or no unemplyment payments.

Once again, these are not rights. They are privileges that you earn. A lazy person who does nothing to earn his wage doesn't have the "right" to decent housing, food, and clothing. i thought u supported the right to life?without food people DIE!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

I've already explained, "inalienable rights" are rights that cannot be taken away by a legitimate government without due process of law.

Inalienable rights were part of the social contract which was always designed as a check on government. It basically established that a legitimate government cannot take away your life liberty or property without due process of law, else revolution is justified.

As in your case, if I don't have food, I have to earn it, I don't hae the right to enslave other people (thus violating their right to liberty and property) to get that food.

Likewise, the right to property is the right to what you can acquire legally. It is not the right to a big screen TV, a new car, and things you can't afford. It establishes that government can't rob you without due process.

]

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.[/quote]

Go back and read my post again. I said that Life is NOT a right, it is a privilege that you earn. You have to strive every day to maintain that privilege. If you don't, too bad. It is not the responsibility of the people who do work hard to support those who don't. Some societies, like the old Soviet Union, have tried to make it their responsibility. Look at what happened to them.

By the way, letting someone die on their own is not murder.

no wonder he has so much crime!everybody has a gun!it must be MurderFest,inc. over there!

You logic is flawed..."everyone has a gun so they must be killing each other” Your logic implies that people are intrinsically bad and evil.... therefore they must be killing each other.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all my guns combined.

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

A right to do something is not a guarantee that you will be able to do it...it simply means you won't be punished for doing it as long as you respect others' rights in the process (including property rights).
Right(noun,neuter):an entitlement.
Entitlement(noun,neuter):the guaranteed ability and authorization to do something.

now,the right to property,and why it is a form of oppresion:
citizen X is dying of hunger,but citizen Y has much more food than he needs;however,he owns this food,this means he can legally deny X his human right to life,and murder him by starvation.
THUS PROPERTY IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AS IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO DENY RIGHTS TO TO OTHERS!

]

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

Go back and read my post again. I said that Life is NOT a right, it is a privilege that you earn. You have to strive every day to maintain that privilege. If you don't, too bad. It is not the responsibility of the people who do work hard to support those who don't. Some societies, like the old Soviet Union, have tried to make it their responsibility. Look at what happened to them.

By the way, letting someone die on their own is not murder.[/quote]

A person has an inalienable right to life, that means it cannot be JUSTLY taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That's a check on government. It means FBI can't come into your house at night and shoot you. That is what the right to life means, not some liberal mumbo-jumbo.

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

A right to do something is not a guarantee that you will be able to do it...it simply means you won't be punished for doing it as long as you respect others' rights in the process (including property rights).

Ithuania, you are truly gifted in the art of the summation :).

I can't believe you are voting FOR the current resolution!! Can't you people read?? With the current wording of this resolution....Your resolution would create so many loopholes in a member nation's legal system...crime rates would spring sky high because the government is powerless to incarcerate its criminals; and even when they do, they serve no time...and are allowed back into society where they can continue right where they left off...You need to rethink and reword this resolution before you all make a very tragic, horrible mistake!!!

THUS PROPERTY IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AS IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO DENY RIGHTS TO TO OTHERS!

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

That's scary!!! Do you honetly believe that?

]

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

Go back and read my post again. I said that Life is NOT a right, it is a privilege that you earn. You have to strive every day to maintain that privilege. If you don't, too bad. It is not the responsibility of the people who do work hard to support those who don't. Some societies, like the old Soviet Union, have tried to make it their responsibility. Look at what happened to them.

By the way, letting someone die on their own is not murder.

ok,so why dont you oppose the human rights bill?it says life is a right!either leave the UN or accept people's right to life!
Game,set,and match to Cirdanistan 8)

I can't believe you are voting FOR the current resolution!! Can't you people read?? With the current wording of this resolution....Your resolution would create so many loopholes in a member nation's legal system...crime rates would spring sky high because the government is powerless to incarcerate its criminals; and even when they do, they serve no time...and are allowed back into society where they can continue right where they left off...You need to rethink and reword this resolution before you all make a very tragic, horrible mistake!!!

This has nothing to do with the point at hand but um okay.

]

i thought u supported the right to life?without food people [color=red] DIE [/color=red]!
therefore,you beleive the unemployed should be kille doff,or do you just let them starve?either way,you are a murderer.

Go back and read my post again. I said that Life is NOT a right, it is a privilege that you earn. You have to strive every day to maintain that privilege. If you don't, too bad. It is not the responsibility of the people who do work hard to support those who don't. Some societies, like the old Soviet Union, have tried to make it their responsibility. Look at what happened to them.

By the way, letting someone die on their own is not murder.

ok,so why dont you oppose the human rights bill?it says life is a right!either leave the UN or accept people's right to life!
Game,set,and match to Cirdanistan 8)

Um, you manipulated the quote! LoL! The post that you attributed to me was actually written by UberRepublicans! I believe in a right to life if you read my posts. And I'm voting for the human rights bill.

Have you ever heard of "you can swing your arm as far as you want until you hit me?" A person's positive right, i.e. healthcare, education, etc. CANNOT be exersized if it violates another person's negative right, i.e. life, liberty, property. A person has no right to free food, since that would entail violating someone else's right to property.

A person has a right to life, meaning no one can take it away by actively doing something. By not doing something, nature, and not you, is accountable for the former person's death.

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.

A person has an inalienable right to life, that means it cannot be JUSTLY taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That's a check on government. It means FBI can't come into your house at night and shoot you. That is what the right to life means, not some liberal mumbo-jumbo.

Your "right" to life is an artificial, man-made thing. It's not a law of nature. It is ignored by nature. Natural selection means survival of the fittest. If you don't do what you need to do to survive, then you die. That's it, and nature does not mourn you death.

A right is something that you cannot lose. That is why life is not a right, but PURSUIT of happiness is.

A person has an inalienable right to life, that means it cannot be JUSTLY taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That's a check on government. It means FBI can't come into your house at night and shoot you. That is what the right to life means, not some liberal mumbo-jumbo.

Your "right" to life is an artificial, man-made thing. It's not a law of nature. It is ignored by nature. Natural selection means survival of the fittest. If you don't do what you need to do to survive, then you die. That's it, and nature does not mourn you death.

A right is something that you cannot lose. That is why life is not a right, but PURSUIT of happiness is.

Oh according to the Laws of Nature, nothing is a right. Not even pursuit of happiness. But we don't live according to the Laws of nature, we live (I hope) according to the laws of the social contract, which gives the right to life.

UberRepublicans-you have shwon that you disagree with current UN law.either you mount a campaign to repeal it and in the eman time apply it OR leave the UN.if you continue flounting the law,i will alert the mods and you risk expulsion from the UN.If ure anti-un,this isnt a forum for you.

A person has an inalienable right to life, that means it cannot be JUSTLY taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That's a check on government. It means FBI can't come into your house at night and shoot you. That is what the right to life means, not some liberal mumbo-jumbo.

Your "right" to life is an artificial, man-made thing. It's not a law of nature. It is ignored by nature. Natural selection means survival of the fittest. If you don't do what you need to do to survive, then you die. That's it, and nature does not mourn you death.

A right is something that you cannot lose. That is why life is not a right, but PURSUIT of happiness is.

Oh according to the Laws of Nature, nothing is a right. Not even pursuit of happiness. But we don't live according to the Laws of nature, we live (I hope) according to the laws of the social contract, which gives the right to life.
to that i can agree;the goal of civilization is to make man better than he naturally is

Getting this back on topic here... creating a minimum wage should not fall under the auspices of the UN. This is a decision that each nation must make for itself. I am under the assumption that slavery is banned by the UN? Then that is as far as the UN's power should extend in regards to this proposal. All citizen's do receive just compensation for their labor.

This proposal is a waste of our time.

Have you ever heard of "you can swing your arm as far as you want until you hit me?" A person's positive right, i.e. healthcare, education, etc. CANNOT be exersized if it violates another person's negative right, i.e. life, liberty, property. A person has no right to free food, since that would entail violating someone else's right to property.

A person has a right to life, meaning no one can take it away by actively doing something. By not doing something, nature, and not you, is accountable for the former person's death.

Hrmm but absolute negative freedom in terms of property rights is about as far as you can get from meritocracy, those at the bottom never have any chance of getting anywhere and those at the top have all the power. Since capitalism is justified on some vague version of meritocracy in supporting total negative freedom you take away all possible moral justification for capitalism.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

Oh according to the Laws of Nature, nothing is a right. Not even pursuit of happiness. But we don't live according to the Laws of nature, we live (I hope) according to the laws of the social contract, which gives the right to life.

We may want to live according to the laws of social contact, but Natural Law always prevails. ALWAYS. Your use of this "social contract" to your advantage is part of your fitness to survive. So is keeping yourself out of potentially dangerous situations (back alleys, city parks, China, etc). :wink:

Also, pursuit of happiness is one of the only rights that you do have according to natural law. Nothing says you will ever achieve happiness, but you can pursue it until you die (because life is NOT a right). :wink:

Oh according to the Laws of Nature, nothing is a right. Not even pursuit of happiness. But we don't live according to the Laws of nature, we live (I hope) according to the laws of the social contract, which gives the right to life.

We may want to live according to the laws of social contact, but Natural Law always prevails. ALWAYS. Your use of this "social contract" to your advantage is part of your fitness to survive. So is keeping yourself out of potentially dangerous situations (back alleys, city parks, China, etc). :wink:

Also, pursuit of happiness is one of the only rights that you do have according to natural law. Nothing says you will ever achieve happiness, but you can pursue it until you die (because life is NOT a right). :wink:

True, true.

Getting this back on topic here... creating a minimum wage should not fall under the auspices of the UN. This is a decision that each nation must make for itself. I am under the assumption that slavery is banned by the UN? Then that is as far as the UN's power should extend in regards to this proposal. All citizen's do receive just compensation for their labor.

This proposal is a waste of our time.
you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.
a,so i can push a boulder onto your car,killing you,but not commit murder since all i did was exercize my right to push a boulder,and you died as an INDIRECT cause?great to know,i may try some day.
GAME OVER.TRY AGAIN. 8)

Getting this back on topic here... creating a minimum wage should not fall under the auspices of the UN. This is a decision that each nation must make for itself. I am under the assumption that slavery is banned by the UN? Then that is as far as the UN's power should extend in regards to this proposal. All citizen's do receive just compensation for their labor.

This proposal is a waste of our time.
you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

Actually that is slavery, because you aren't allowed to quit your job or you will be shot. If you take out the "if you attempt to quit work you shall be shot!" then nobody's rights are violated and it is not slavery.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!

Getting this back on topic here... creating a minimum wage should not fall under the auspices of the UN. This is a decision that each nation must make for itself. I am under the assumption that slavery is banned by the UN? Then that is as far as the UN's power should extend in regards to this proposal. All citizen's do receive just compensation for their labor.

This proposal is a waste of our time.
you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

Actually that is slavery, because you aren't allowed to quit your job or you will be shot. If you take out the "if you attempt to quit work you shall be shot!" then nobody's rights are violated and it is not slavery.
1)actually,it's a form of forced labor,but it it's not slavery.There is a nuance.
2)check the post just above that one-if you still want to prove that you're allowed to indirectly kill some-one,the ball is in youre camp(and the boulder ontop of your head 8) ).

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.
a,so i can push a boulder onto your car,killing you,but not commit murder since all i did was exercize my right to push a boulder,and you died as an INDIRECT cause?great to know,i may try some day.
GAME OVER.TRY AGAIN. 8)

Actually by pushing a boulder over the mountain you directly created the circumstances which would have caused my death. Just like shooting someone. You exersize your right to discharge a firearm, and a person died as a result. In both cases, you would be guilty of either murder or reckless endangerment depending on teh circumstances.

In the case of food however, you are under no obligation to give food to someone. In teh case of a boulder and shooting you COMMITTED AN ACTION that reasonably caused someone's death. In the case of food you didn't do anything, thus you didnt not cause that person's death.

If that person's family really fells it is your fault (and not the 6 billion other people in the world's) they can sue you for wrongful death... and get laughed out of court. Who would you sue after all?

Getting this back on topic here... creating a minimum wage should not fall under the auspices of the UN. This is a decision that each nation must make for itself. I am under the assumption that slavery is banned by the UN? Then that is as far as the UN's power should extend in regards to this proposal. All citizen's do receive just compensation for their labor.

This proposal is a waste of our time.
you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

Actually that is slavery, because you aren't allowed to quit your job or you will be shot. If you take out the "if you attempt to quit work you shall be shot!" then nobody's rights are violated and it is not slavery.
1)actually,it's a form of forced labor,but it it's not slavery.There is a nuance.
2)check the post just above that one-if you still want to prove that you're allowed to indirectly kill some-one,the ball is in youre camp(and the boulder ontop of your head 8) ).

Forced labor is slavery.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.
a,so i can push a boulder onto your car,killing you,but not commit murder since all i did was exercize my right to push a boulder,and you died as an INDIRECT cause?great to know,i may try some day.
GAME OVER.TRY AGAIN. 8)

Actually by pushing a boulder over the mountain you directly created the circumstances which would have caused my death. Just like shooting someone. You exersize your right to discharge a firearm, and a person died as a result. In both cases, you would be guilty of either murder or reckless endangerment depending on teh circumstances.

In the case of food however, you are under no obligation to give food to someone. In teh case of a boulder and shooting you COMMITTED AN ACTION that reasonably caused someone's death. In the case of food you didn't do anything, thus you didnt not cause that person's death.

If that person's family really fells it is your fault (and not the 6 billion other people in the world's) they can sue you for wrongful death... and get laughed out of court. Who would you sue after all?
do it detect an attempt to move out of the domain of moral rights and onto that of current US legislation?try that on somebody else,mate.since you wanna insist...
NEW EXAMPLE:i drive a car ,you cross the street on foot;i dont stop,you die=i produce food,you need food,i don't give you any.Both are negative actions causing youre death.
Tje ball's on youre side of the net,once again. 8)

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!

I do not doubt that there are stories of people who have worked hard and deserve to be successful or at least they deserve to be more than most people who are successful. Though just being born in a place like America gives you a huge advantage over most of the world.
The vast majority of those who are rich are in their position because they were born into priviliged situations, others will have fought their way up through the exploitation of others. Those you describe who worked hard all the way and did so entirely fairly are a tiny minority.

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.
a,so i can push a boulder onto your car,killing you,but not commit murder since all i did was exercize my right to push a boulder,and you died as an INDIRECT cause?great to know,i may try some day.
GAME OVER.TRY AGAIN. 8)

Actually by pushing a boulder over the mountain you directly created the circumstances which would have caused my death. Just like shooting someone. You exersize your right to discharge a firearm, and a person died as a result. In both cases, you would be guilty of either murder or reckless endangerment depending on teh circumstances.

In the case of food however, you are under no obligation to give food to someone. In teh case of a boulder and shooting you COMMITTED AN ACTION that reasonably caused someone's death. In the case of food you didn't do anything, thus you didnt not cause that person's death.

If that person's family really fells it is your fault (and not the 6 billion other people in the world's) they can sue you for wrongful death... and get laughed out of court. Who would you sue after all?
do it detect an attempt to move out of the domain of moral rights and onto that of current US legislation?try that on somebody else,mate.since you wanna insist...
NEW EXAMPLE:i drive a car ,you cross the street on foot;i dont stop,you die=i produce food,you need food,i don't give you any.Both are negative actions causing youre death.
Tje ball's on youre side of the net,once again. 8)

Here, you are still responsbile for my injury. Actually, not fully. You are partially responsible for my injury. I am also partially responsible.

In this case, YOUR car actually harmed me. So I could sue for injuries. Unless I was being really reckless.

But in the food case, NOBODY gave food to the starving person. The starving person isn't anyone's responsibilty. His lack of food could have been fixed by 6 billion differnet people, whereas the car thing you were the only person to stop. So the case of who is guilty when someone starves to death (unlesss you claim guardianship) is collective guilt.

And as Albert Speer once said, "There is no such thing as collective guilt."

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!

I do not doubt that there are stories of people who have worked hard and deserve to be successful or at least they deserve to be more than most people who are successful. Though just being born in a place like America gives you a huge advantage over most of the world.
The vast majority of those who are rich are in their position because they were born into priviliged situations, others will have fought their way up through the exploitation of others. Those you describe who worked hard all the way and did so entirely fairly are a tiny minority.

That's not true; the number of billionaries in the US who inherited their fortunes (or even more than $10 million) is ZERO.

And I wasn't born in the US, I was born in China.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

If you don't step on your car's breaks YOU ALONE are guilty.
If you don't (and neither does 6 billion other people) feed someone, THE WHOLE WORLD is guilty.

And I've already quoted Albert Speer to demonstrate.

And it is easier to find the door than walk through. In fact, I know four people who came from borderline-welfare families and got into the Ivies.

yes-however,i do not recongize the right to property!as i said-the only use such a right has,is to deny others their rights PLUS your argument swings both ways:you can only exercize your right to property so long as it does not threaten another person's right to life 8)

Prove that ME exersizing my right to property DIRECTLY interferes with another person's right to life. Read Locke, property is just as important of a right as life and liberty.
a,so i can push a boulder onto your car,killing you,but not commit murder since all i did was exercize my right to push a boulder,and you died as an INDIRECT cause?great to know,i may try some day.
GAME OVER.TRY AGAIN. 8)

Actually by pushing a boulder over the mountain you directly created the circumstances which would have caused my death. Just like shooting someone. You exersize your right to discharge a firearm, and a person died as a result. In both cases, you would be guilty of either murder or reckless endangerment depending on teh circumstances.

In the case of food however, you are under no obligation to give food to someone. In teh case of a boulder and shooting you COMMITTED AN ACTION that reasonably caused someone's death. In the case of food you didn't do anything, thus you didnt not cause that person's death.

If that person's family really fells it is your fault (and not the 6 billion other people in the world's) they can sue you for wrongful death... and get laughed out of court. Who would you sue after all?
do it detect an attempt to move out of the domain of moral rights and onto that of current US legislation?try that on somebody else,mate.since you wanna insist...
NEW EXAMPLE:i drive a car ,you cross the street on foot;i dont stop,you die=i produce food,you need food,i don't give you any.Both are negative actions causing youre death.
Tje ball's on youre side of the net,once again. 8)

Here, you are still responsbile for my injury. Actually, not fully. You are partially responsible for my injury. I am also partially responsible.

In this case, YOUR car actually harmed me. So I could sue for injuries. Unless I was being really reckless.

But in the food case, NOBODY gave food to the starving person. The starving person isn't anyone's responsibilty. His lack of food could have been fixed by 6 billion differnet people, whereas the car thing you were the only person to stop. So the case of who is guilty when someone starves to death (unlesss you claim guardianship) is collective guilt.

And as Albert Speer once said, "There is no such thing as collective guilt."
the guilty party is he who could have most easily averted the death-the State,when there is one,otherwise the person with the most food ina reasonable radius(which depends on means of transportation and communication available).And sicne you're fond of quoting law-books and philosophers,most civilized countries have a crime of "refusing assistance to an endangered person".

you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

If you don't feel that you are being justly compensated, then:
a)quit
b)form a labor union and demand better pay
c)deal with it, drink A few beers and beat your wife to take out your aggression.
d)shoot the bosses

Yes, those were sarcastic. But as long as you are throwing up hypothetical situations...after working his 100 hr week for his one penny annually, Mogutu and the rest of his village pool together their pay and purchase enough seed to plant a thriving wheat crop. By carefully setting aside the proper amount of seed each year, they have turned their initial investment into the nation's leading producer of grain. Additionally, they used some of their capital to create an irrigation company on the side which uses its workforce of former canal diggers. They all receive a healthy 9 gimps/hr because Mr. Mogutu felt they deserved more.

Meanwhile, Canal Inc. is still paying the morons who are willing to work for .01 gimps a year to dig canals.

actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."

That is absolutely right. Preparation is about YOU.

You can't control the opportunity, but that doesn't mean the opportunities won't come. Like I said in the original post, that opportunity might me small (Anybody who can do a good job washing dishes can get a job though), but it will be the first of many if you are willing to sieze it.
It might mean that you have to work 16-20 hours per day at first. It might mean that you have to do work that you feel is "beneath you." It might mean that you have to sacrifice certain luxuries like automobiles and televisions (I know a lot of poor people who still find a way to pay for cable television). It might even mean that you have to eat Ramen, canned food, and drink nothing but water.
But if you make sacrifices, work hard, improve yourself personally (through training, studying, and practicing new skills), and prepare, the opportunities will be there. You may have to go out and look for them (part of preparation), but they will be there.

Your life is what you make it.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

If you don't step on your car's breaks YOU ALONE are guilty.
If you don't (and neither does 6 billion other people) feed someone, THE WHOLE WORLD is guilty.

And I've already quoted Albert Speer to demonstrate.

And it is easier to find the door than walk through. In fact, I know four people who came from borderline-welfare families and got into the Ivies.
which proves?they may have come from areas with socialist education policies,or they may not,but only about 0.01% of successful persosn are so mainly by their own means-a way of re-stating "you control 0% of youre opportunities and 1% of youre preparations"

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

If you don't step on your car's breaks YOU ALONE are guilty.
If you don't (and neither does 6 billion other people) feed someone, THE WHOLE WORLD is guilty.

And I've already quoted Albert Speer to demonstrate.

And it is easier to find the door than walk through. In fact, I know four people who came from borderline-welfare families and got into the Ivies.
which proves?they may have come from areas with socialist education policies,or they may not,but only about 0.01% of successful persosn are so mainly by their own means-a way of re-stating "you control 0% of youre opportunities and 1% of youre preparations"

Actually they came from Pittsburgh which has some crappy public schools.

And as I said earlier, not a single billionaire in the US inherited more than 1% of his fortune.

And what the hell 0.01%? Look at the entreprenuers! Carnegie grew up dirt poor, so did Vanderbilt and Addams. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos... all middle-class. The richest people in capitlaist society RARELY inherit their fortunes. Are there cases yes? But mostly it is their own labor.

you have been hired to work 100 hours weeks digging canals.your pay 0.1$ annually,and if u attempt to quit work you shall be shot!I'M PAYING YOU!IT'S NOT SLAVERY!but somehow i dont think you're receiving just compensation for your work,do you?

If you don't feel that you are being justly compensated, then:
a)quit
b)form a labor union and demand better pay
c)deal with it, drink A few beers and beat your wife to take out your aggression.
d)shoot the bosses

Yes, those were sarcastic. But as long as you are throwing up hypothetical situations...after working his 100 hr week for his one penny annually, Mogutu and the rest of his village pool together their pay and purchase enough seed to plant a thriving wheat crop. By carefully setting aside the proper amount of seed each year, they have turned their initial investment into the nation's leading producer of grain. Additionally, they used some of their capital to create an irrigation company on the side which uses its workforce of former canal diggers. They all receive a healthy 9 gimps/hr because Mr. Mogutu felt they deserved more.

Meanwhile, Canal Inc. is still paying the morons who are willing to work for .01 gimps a year to dig canals.
i'm not sure youre clear about the fact that people in this situation would be dead before they received their paychecks?and i don't see what's sarcastic about founding a trade union,please explain it to me....you see,my moronic joke comprehension cells are dead.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

If you don't step on your car's breaks YOU ALONE are guilty.
If you don't (and neither does 6 billion other people) feed someone, THE WHOLE WORLD is guilty.

And I've already quoted Albert Speer to demonstrate.

And it is easier to find the door than walk through. In fact, I know four people who came from borderline-welfare families and got into the Ivies.
which proves?they may have come from areas with socialist education policies,or they may not,but only about 0.01% of successful persosn are so mainly by their own means-a way of re-stating "you control 0% of youre opportunities and 1% of youre preparations"

Actually they came from Pittsburgh which has some crappy public schools.

And as I said earlier, not a single billionaire in the US inherited more than 1% of his fortune.

And what the hell 0.01%? Look at the entreprenuers! Carnegie grew up dirt poor, so did Vanderbilt and Addams. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos... all middle-class. The richest people in capitlaist society RARELY inherit their fortunes. Are there cases yes? But mostly it is their own labor.
1)then you know some hard-working,intelligent chaps *shrugs* and for each Carnegie there litterally billions of dead by starvation;the reason the middle class is so successful is 'cuz there's a limit to how good an education you cna buy,andthe middle classes have mroe to work for-the uppers dotn work at all,just by the sheer chance of their births they spend their whole lives lounging in swiming pools with bimboes.
2)just cuz albert speer says something and you believe it,doesnt make it right,the smae way that just because the bible says to stone adulterers to death and some asshole believes it,dos'nt make that right either.
3)youre evading the main question,i.e. you're not provind that indirect killing by a negative action is allowable.

Of course the whole idea of a right to property is a bunch of ape, but assuming it does exist it then comes down to priorities. Is it more important to allow a billionaire to have ten homes and a private airforce or to provide basic services such as food, education, healthcare etc to millions of starving people? Now if we consider that the millions of starving people are in their position through no fault of their own and are unable to get out of it, while the billionaire is rich either through luck or more likely through corruption and exploitation it becomes a rather obvious choice.

LUCK?!? Luck is what you get when your preparation meets your opportunity.
In America, if you have made the necessary preparations and you perform when the opportunity arrives (and it will, even if it is something small, like a dishwashing job), then you "got lucky." If you then work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, and prepare yourself, you can move up again at the next opportunity. Keep working, and you can become successful.
Like I said before, look up Bill Porter. That guy worked hard and survived!
actually,it's the other way 'round-it's when your opportunity(which you cannot control) metts youre preparations(which are 99% the doings of youre parents,extended family,teachers etc....).

Opportunity might be random that you can't control, but preparation is what YOU work for. A person has free will, and therefore he has teh ability to prepare himself. Parents and teachers can help, but YOU yourself have to do most of the work. There is a saying among Chinese teachers: "I can only show you the door, you must walk through it."
ah yes-but knowing where the door is in a capitalist labor market is much harder than walking through it;if youre parents cant afford a good teacher,you will never find the door to walk through.And you simply cant make a difference between negative actions such as refusing to slam on youre car's breaks and refusing to feed someone.they are the same:by taking action,you save a persons life,by not doing so,you murder them.

If you don't step on your car's breaks YOU ALONE are guilty.
If you don't (and neither does 6 billion other people) feed someone, THE WHOLE WORLD is guilty.

And I've already quoted Albert Speer to demonstrate.

And it is easier to find the door than walk through. In fact, I know four people who came from borderline-welfare families and got into the Ivies.
which proves?they may have come from areas with socialist education policies,or they may not,but only about 0.01% of successful persosn are so mainly by their own means-a way of re-stating "you control 0% of youre opportunities and 1% of youre preparations"

Actually they came from Pittsburgh which has some crappy public schools.

And as I said earlier, not a single billionaire in the US inherited more than 1% of his fortune.

And what the hell 0.01%? Look at the entreprenuers! Carnegie grew up dirt poor, so did Vanderbilt and Addams. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos... all middle-class. The richest people in capitlaist society RARELY inherit their fortunes. Are there cases yes? But mostly it is their own labor.
1)then you know some hard-working,intelligent chaps *shrugs* and for each Carnegie there litterally billions of dead by starvation;the reason the middle class is so successful is 'cuz there's a limit to how good an education you cna buy,andthe middle classes have mroe to work for-the uppers dotn work at all,just by the sheer chance of their births they spend their whole lives lounging in swiming pools with bimboes.
2)just cuz albert speer says something and you believe it,doesnt make it right,the smae way that just because the bible says to stone adulterers to death and some asshole believes it,dos'nt make that right either.
3)youre evading the main question,i.e. you're not provind that indirect killing by a negative action is allowable.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

(we need to stop these mass-quotes or the thread will become unreadable)
1) yes but how many carngeies have there been in the last few centuries?less than two dozen.it's during that entire period that over a billion died per carnegie-like figure;admiteddly there IS less starvation today,but social rigidity is increasing also;capitalism is still a step up from feudalism where we had both ultr-rigid societies and mass-starvation.
2)where the heck does that 200M dead from attempts to reduce starvation come from?if 200M died a year that way,humanity would soon be wiped out!or do you count USD as casualties?
3)ah,but it is the State's duty to ensure you have enough to eat/can afford to eat,since the State is the emmanence of the collectivity-State guilt is how we avoid having collective guilt.Thus the state is indirectly killing people if it does nto ppay out welfare and ensure a minimum wage.

Ok as i do not do buisness study's and therefore do not no all the appropriate terms any attempt i may make to this thread will be blown out of the water, however has anyone ever noticed how capitalisticly biast this game is ? for example the only "issue" that actually directly cuts taxes is the one entitled "Citizens Struggle Under "Unfair" Tax Burden" , however the only option on this "issue" that actually allows you to cut tax means cutting funding to wealfare and education but leaving buisness subsidies alone is there something distinctly wrong with that or am i being rather foolish ?

1)then you know some hard-working,intelligent chaps *shrugs* and for each Carnegie there litterally billions of dead by starvation;the reason the middle class is so successful is 'cuz there's a limit to how good an education you cna buy,andthe middle classes have mroe to work for-the uppers dotn work at all,just by the sheer chance of their births they spend their whole lives lounging in swiming pools with bimboes.
2)just cuz albert speer says something and you believe it,doesnt make it right,the smae way that just because the bible says to stone adulterers to death and some asshole believes it,dos'nt make that right either.
3)youre evading the main question,i.e. you're not provind that indirect killing by a negative action is allowable.

You don't really believe that crap, do you? People lounging around swimming pools with bimboes? Dude, that kind of stuff only happens in the movies. Bad movies, at that.

The reality is that nearly every person who has attained AND retained wealth has done it through hard work and sacrifice. It's not just an easy life, but it is one worth working for. Those who don't, lose it.

Also, you aren't taking into consideration the jobs that those rich people create. Millions of jobs EXIST today because of Bill Gates. Teenagers who put forth an effort are able to get fantastic jobs coming out of high school.

You people with this ludicrous Robin Hood mentality make me sick. The rich today did not become rich through villiany and cheating, nor did they get it through inheritance. The concept of old money is long gone.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

How do you define "those most able to help them"?

$20,000 income? $30,000? $50,000? $150,000? How?

Next time some starving kid in Africa dies, I want you to sue Bill Gates for wrongful death. I'll bring my stopwatch, see how fast your case gets dismissed.

i'd sya there is-TGM might even agree with me on that one(i think libertarians disaprove of business subsidies).However,that option is really caricatural-choose it to show you care more about business interests than your people.

i'd sya there is-TGM might even agree with me on that one(i think libertarians disaprove of business subsidies).However,that option is really caricatural-choose it to show you care more about business interests than your people.

Yeah Libertarians disagree with business subsidy.

Also classes aren't nearly as rigid as you think, sorry bud.

(we need to stop these mass-quotes or the thread will become unreadable)
1) yes but how many carngeies have there been in the last few centuries?less than two dozen.it's during that entire period that over a billion died per carnegie-like figure;admiteddly there IS less starvation today,but social rigidity is increasing also;capitalism is still a step up from feudalism where we had both ultr-rigid societies and mass-starvation.
2)where the heck does that 200M dead from attempts to reduce starvation come from?if 200M died a year that way,humanity would soon be wiped out!or do you count USD as casualties?
3)ah,but it is the State's duty to ensure you have enough to eat/can afford to eat,since the State is the emmanence of the collectivity-State guilt is how we avoid having collective guilt.Thus the state is indirectly killing people if it does nto ppay out welfare and ensure a minimum wage.

The state is also indirectly enslaving people by robbing them of money to pay welfare, etc.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

How do you define "those most able to help them"?

$20,000 income? $30,000? $50,000? $150,000? How?

Next time some starving kid in Africa dies, I want you to sue Bill Gates for wrongful death. I'll bring my stopwatch, see how fast your case gets dismissed.
i'll answer with two letters-BS.first,you're not even arguing about right or worng,but about US law.Secodnly,you oughta be smart enough to know that it is relative-if you don't,well,i know of a good asylum for the mentally retarded.Don't make yourself out stupider than you are.the "person" most able to help is the State since the State is the collective actions of the entire country,and state funds are UP TO any money needed(in money based capitalist system) to purchase human rights.

i'd sya there is-TGM might even agree with me on that one(i think libertarians disaprove of business subsidies).However,that option is really caricatural-choose it to show you care more about business interests than your people.

Yeah Libertarians disagree with business subsidy.

Also classes aren't nearly as rigid as you think, sorry bud.
i siad they are more rigind than in carnegie's time-because the growth was stronger in the 19th century.

(we need to stop these mass-quotes or the thread will become unreadable)
1) yes but how many carngeies have there been in the last few centuries?less than two dozen.it's during that entire period that over a billion died per carnegie-like figure;admiteddly there IS less starvation today,but social rigidity is increasing also;capitalism is still a step up from feudalism where we had both ultr-rigid societies and mass-starvation.
2)where the heck does that 200M dead from attempts to reduce starvation come from?if 200M died a year that way,humanity would soon be wiped out!or do you count USD as casualties?
3)ah,but it is the State's duty to ensure you have enough to eat/can afford to eat,since the State is the emmanence of the collectivity-State guilt is how we avoid having collective guilt.Thus the state is indirectly killing people if it does nto ppay out welfare and ensure a minimum wage.

The state is also indirectly enslaving people by robbing them of money to pay welfare, etc.
robbery and enslavement are very,very different1,and 2 do you think if when bill gates dies by levying inheritance tax i'm robbing his heirs of what they "earned" by gving themsleves the trouble of being born?

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

How do you define "those most able to help them"?

$20,000 income? $30,000? $50,000? $150,000? How?

Next time some starving kid in Africa dies, I want you to sue Bill Gates for wrongful death. I'll bring my stopwatch, see how fast your case gets dismissed.
i'll answer with two letters-BS.first,you're not even arguing about right or worng,but about US law.Secodnly,you oughta be smart enough to know that it is relative-if you don't,well,i know of a good asylum for the mentally retarded.Don't make yourself out stupider than you are.the "person" most able to help is the State since the State is the collective actions of the entire country,and state funds are UP TO any money needed(in money based capitalist system) to purchase human rights.

The state is a mutual assocation of individuals, it has no right to violate a person's negative right in order to improve somebody else's positive right.

Besides, if a state wants to help the poor it needs to be done by voluntary funds and contributions, taxation is robbery.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

How do you define "those most able to help them"?

$20,000 income? $30,000? $50,000? $150,000? How?

Next time some starving kid in Africa dies, I want you to sue Bill Gates for wrongful death. I'll bring my stopwatch, see how fast your case gets dismissed.
i'll answer with two letters-BS.first,you're not even arguing about right or worng,but about US law.Secodnly,you oughta be smart enough to know that it is relative-if you don't,well,i know of a good asylum for the mentally retarded.Don't make yourself out stupider than you are.the "person" most able to help is the State since the State is the collective actions of the entire country,and state funds are UP TO any money needed(in money based capitalist system) to purchase human rights.

The state is a mutual assocation of individuals, it has no right to violate a person's negative right in order to improve somebody else's positive right.

Besides, if a state wants to help the poor it needs to be done by voluntary funds and contributions, taxation is robbery.
so if bill gates was my dad i would have earned(according to you) the right to inhrit all his money?i thought earning was related to work and you were opposed to taxes because theyt ake away what people work for?

and,incedentally,do you defend a right to selfishness?

and,incedentally,do you defend a right to selfishness?

Of course, in fact I think a just society's laws should be based on Enlightened Self-Interest. No just society should create a law forcing you to violate your own rights, i.e. Selective Service, Income Tax, etc.

There aren't billions of dead from starvation.

It's 24,000 a day, that's 9 million a year. And that's a very recent statistic.

200 Million Dead from government trying to fix starvation though.

The main point isn't killing by negative action. At least my main point wasn't. My main point was that starvation is not an individual crime. If you don't give food you are just as guilty as six billion other people.

If you run over me with your car you logically carry the most blame.

Do you have sources? Individuals are not guilty directly for those who die through starvation, but it is those most able to help them who should be blamed if they do not do so.

How do you define "those most able to help them"?

$20,000 income? $30,000? $50,000? $150,000? How?

Next time some starving kid in Africa dies, I want you to sue Bill Gates for wrongful death. I'll bring my stopwatch, see how fast your case gets dismissed.
i'll answer with two letters-BS.first,you're not even arguing about right or worng,but about US law.Secodnly,you oughta be smart enough to know that it is relative-if you don't,well,i know of a good asylum for the mentally retarded.Don't make yourself out stupider than you are.the "person" most able to help is the State since the State is the collective actions of the entire country,and state funds are UP TO any money needed(in money based capitalist system) to purchase human rights.

The state is a mutual assocation of individuals, it has no right to violate a person's negative right in order to improve somebody else's positive right.

Besides, if a state wants to help the poor it needs to be done by voluntary funds and contributions, taxation is robbery.
so if bill gates was my dad i would have earned(according to you) the right to inhrit all his money?i thought earning was related to work and you were opposed to taxes because theyt ake away what people work for?

Bill Gates has the right to do what he wants with his money, if it is his choice to give it to his kids, that is his choice.

It is identical to I have the right to do what I want with my money, if I want to give it to a homeless person, that is my choice.

I usually don't reference the bible, seeing as I'm not even Christian, but Read Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard ;). It is an excellent defense of property rights.

i'm not sure youre clear about the fact that people in this situation would be dead before they received their paychecks?and i don't see what's sarcastic about founding a trade union,please explain it to me....you see,my moronic joke comprehension cells are dead.

Sorry for not including the word "some" when describing the sarcastic options. I thought common sense would have helped you understand which were the sarcastic options. I forgot I was dealing with a leftist who thinks the government is actually responsible forActually, I would opt for a trade union...which obviously you thought was a valid option as well. Therefore no need for the minimum wage.

I understand that they would have been dead. But since you gave a highly unrealistic example, I gave a highly unrealistic response. Ask a stupid question...

robbery and enslavement are very,very different1,and 2 do you think if when bill gates dies by levying inheritance tax i'm robbing his heirs of what they "earned" by gving themsleves the trouble of being born?

Check out this link.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56333,00.html

If you were going to pick a rich person to badger, you should have picked someone other than Bill Gates. He is more charitable than anybody else on the planet. He has created more jobs than anybody else in history, he is continuously donating millions to AIDS research and other charities, and he is only leaving a small fraction of his accumulated wealth to his kids. Why? Because he wants them to make it on their own, and he wants the money that he has EARNED back into society.

The key here is that he WANTS to donate to charities and research. He doesn't have to, but he wants to. It is a privilege that he has earned.

(we need to stop these mass-quotes or the thread will become unreadable)
1) yes but how many carngeies have there been in the last few centuries?less than two dozen.it's during that entire period that over a billion died per carnegie-like figure;admiteddly there IS less starvation today,but social rigidity is increasing also;capitalism is still a step up from feudalism where we had both ultr-rigid societies and mass-starvation.
2)where the heck does that 200M dead from attempts to reduce starvation come from?if 200M died a year that way,humanity would soon be wiped out!or do you count USD as casualties?
3)ah,but it is the State's duty to ensure you have enough to eat/can afford to eat,since the State is the emmanence of the collectivity-State guilt is how we avoid having collective guilt.Thus the state is indirectly killing people if it does nto ppay out welfare and ensure a minimum wage.

The state is also indirectly enslaving people by robbing them of money to pay welfare, etc.
robbery and enslavement are very,very different1,and 2 do you think if when bill gates dies by levying inheritance tax i'm robbing his heirs of what they "earned" by gving themsleves the trouble of being born?

In that case by levying inheritance tax you are robbing Gates's children of the money that their father gave them as a gift. That's like saying there should be a tax on Christmas presents. You didn't "earn" them, someone else gave them to you. The same principle applies to charity. The poor don't earn the money that I donate to them, I donate it to them of my free will. It's my money, I'll give it to whoever the hell I want to.

so you defend the right to unlimited selfishness?by all measn,propose it as a UN resolution and see if it passes.Be my guest.

and,incedentally,do you defend a right to selfishness?

YES!! Damn straight!

Why? Because the selfish are the people that ensure the advancement of the species. They search for ways to improve their own way of life, and this knowledge spreads.

It might not seem fair, but it is. Just because some people win big and others lose big (and often die) does not make it unfair.

Funny, it's always the people who lose that bitch about life being "unfair"...

so you defend the right to unlimited selfishness?by all measn,propose it as a UN resolution and see if it passes.Be my guest.

I said Enlightened Self-Interest, i.e. you can do what is best for yourself until there is a CLEAR AND PROVABLE HARM to someone else.

yeah,funny how you can know how well epole succeed in life through a computer screen.wonder how you do it,hmm? :roll:
(for you primitive intellect,the above is a prime exapmple of sarcasm)
ok,so we have now established that all those who do NOT support a "right to selfishness" or some such BS,should support the minimum wage.

yeah,funny how you can know how well epole succeed in life through a computer screen.wonder how you do it,hmm? :roll:
(for you primitive intellect,the above is a prime exapmple of sarcasm)
ok,so we have now established that all those who do NOT support a "right to selfishness" or some such BS,should support the minimum wage.

Selfishness is an idea. You have the right to hold your own ideas. Saying there is no right to selfishness is like saying there is no right to be a lefty.

so you defend the right to unlimited selfishness?by all measn,propose it as a UN resolution and see if it passes.Be my guest.

I said Enlightened Self-Interest, i.e. you can do what is best for yourself until there is a CLEAR AND PROVABLE HARM to someone else.
Starving to death is CLEARLY HARMFUl,and it cna be PROVEN that it happnes as a result of insuffucient social laws.And slefishness is a way of acting,you've got a right to want to be selfish,but not to act selfish.

All those who oppose a right to unviersal unbounded selfishness support this proposal;as has been demonstrated,all those who are against a minimum wage are doing so for selfish reasons,AS HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN!
Then raise the scarlett standard high,
within it's shade we'll live and die,
though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
we'll keep the red flag flying here.

so you defend the right to unlimited selfishness?by all measn,propose it as a UN resolution and see if it passes.Be my guest.

I said Enlightened Self-Interest, i.e. you can do what is best for yourself until there is a CLEAR AND PROVABLE HARM to someone else.
Starving to death is CLEARLY HARMFUl,and it cna be PROVEN that it happnes as a result of insuffucient social laws.And slefishness is a way of acting,you've got a right to want to be selfish,but not to act selfish.

But you can't prove that I directly caused the death of that poor person, as opposed to my neighbor, or his neighbor, unless you want to argue a worldwide conspiracy.

Let's see... by posting this message and trying to convince me aren't you acting selfish? When you brush your teeth, isn't it acting selfishley? If you eat food so you don't starve to death, isn't that selfishness?

If everyone acted in a way contrary to his or her self-interest, our species would be wiped off the face of the Earth.

oh ffs!debate reasonably,and if you want to sulk in denial,do it elsewhere!you're slefish if you're furthering youre self-interests at sombody else's expense...by example,not paying your workers a decent minimum wage is selfish!

oh ffs!debate reasonably,and if you want to sulk in denial,do it elsewhere!you're slefish if you're furthering youre self-interests at sombody else's expense...by example,not paying your workers a decent minimum wage is selfish!

Seeing as I don't have any workers, I don't pay them any wages.

You create the jobs for the workers in the first place. Workers were following their self-interest by accepting the job.

You could say by eating dinner I am consuming food otherwise a starving child in Uganda would use, therefore we should abolish eating dinner. That would the the epitome of irrational anti-selfishness.

oh ffs!debate reasonably,and if you want to sulk in denial,do it elsewhere!you're slefish if you're furthering youre self-interests at sombody else's expense...by example,not paying your workers a decent minimum wage is selfish!

No, it is simply survival of the fittest. ;)

The way I read into it, the proposed minimum wage would result in vast amounts of inflation. If everyone got 50 cent more per hour, the basic standard of living index inflates to match it. Then, you are no better off than before.

oh ffs!debate reasonably,and if you want to sulk in denial,do it elsewhere!you're slefish if you're furthering youre self-interests at sombody else's expense...by example,not paying your workers a decent minimum wage is selfish!

No, it is simply survival of the fittest. ;)

It is your exercizing of property rights.

The way I read into it, the proposed minimum wage would result in vast amounts of inflation. If everyone got 50 cent more per hour, the basic standard of living index inflates to match it. Then, you are no better off than before.

That's optimistic, a far more likely result is unemployment and black markets, which make you WORSE off than before.

which is why the minimum wage works so well worldwide,i am sure....countries like france and germany arn't any worse off for it-in fact,they have less balckmarketeering,and the minimum wage drove up emplyment when introduced.

besides-current UN laws call for a right to life,whihc means a minimum wage and welfare-if you oppose this,you are in non-complience of UN regulations.Goodbye!

The way I read into it, the proposed minimum wage would result in vast amounts of inflation. If everyone got 50 cent more per hour, the basic standard of living index inflates to match it. Then, you are no better off than before.

That's optimistic, a far more likely result is unemployment and black markets, which make you WORSE off than before.

Collapse of the economy, end of the world. Got it. :?

I love the way you ignore;in RP ignoring is the ultimate weapon;in debate,the ultimate surrender.

Like I said earlier, the minimum wage in my country is zero. How much more minimal can I get?

I guess I can always charge people for the privilage to work in my country...

yes,but the UN will "oppress" you into raising it,in order to help the poor devls you make work for next to nothing.
OOC:ironically,i wonder what all the anti-minimum wage campaigners would do iRL without a minimum wage.It exists n all civilized nations(and quite alot of uncivilized ones),and without it most of those arguing against it in NS couldnt afford the computers you type on.

The way I read into it, the proposed minimum wage would result in vast amounts of inflation. If everyone got 50 cent more per hour, the basic standard of living index inflates to match it. Then, you are no better off than before.

Minimum wage, not universal raise. Only those wages below the line would change.

The way I read into it, the proposed minimum wage would result in vast amounts of inflation. If everyone got 50 cent more per hour, the basic standard of living index inflates to match it. Then, you are no better off than before.

Minimum wage, not universal raise. Only those wages below the line would change.

YES, that was what I was referring. When the lowest bars are raised, the next level wants a raise, then the next. Then, before you know it, inflation makes it worse. They are no better than they were before. Things will cost more because there is more money in the economy. Then, they have to go shopping. It is basic supply and demand. The more supply of money there is, the demand goes down making the money worth less.

that's strnage,'cause the only reason you can afford the computer youre typing in is thanks to the existence of a minimum wage.clearly youre wrong.

that's strnage,'cause the only reason you can afford the computer youre typing in is thanks to the existence of a minimum wage.clearly youre wrong.

That's strange because I bought it from my school for $15.

well,you wouldnt have been able to do that either if you didnt have a socially-minded government.And you still coundlt fight the internet bill.

well,you wouldnt have been able to do that either if you didnt have a socially-minded government.And you still coundlt fight the internet bill.

It's paid by the government....

so youre benefiting from a socilaist government,massively so in fact,and are a raving anti-socialist.incredible. :shock: :shock: :shock:

so youre benefiting from a socilaist government,massively so in fact,and are a raving anti-socialist.incredible. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Well in my nation, the tax rate is 100%. Why not give them another 50% raise? I can take that too.

lol

What the fuck are you talking about? A minimum wage has nothing to do with the money I earned to buy my computer...sheesh, could you get any more irrational?

oh yeah?let's think about it.You have a job,right?you live somewhere in the western world,right?now think about what salaries would be like without minimum wage-as a good guideline,look up the salaries in indonesian or malysian sneacker making swetshops.Now estimate,in yearly paychecks,how much you'd need to buy a computer.Afterwards,you may look sheepish.

Considering that I get paid about $12/hour at my job, I fail to see what effect elimination of a minimum wage would have on me...you're completely retarded.

asshole!with minimum wage,the salry scale starts at around 4$ an hour.Without it,all slaries will fall since the payscale would effectively start around 50 cents an hour(you'd be lucky to be paid 1.5$ an hour then).

Wrong. Employers pay people what they're worth. The lack of a minimum wage wouldn't change what I'm worth to my employer.

oh yeah?employers pay peole the least they can and still have a workforce ,idiot.why do you think a minimum wage was necessary,asshole?because employers were paying their worforce enough to lead,clean,confortable lives,i suppose?

If you want an answer, lose the vitriol. Otherwise I'll just assume that you don't dare have your precious beliefs challenged by facts, reality, and reason.

We could resort to slavery....... :cry:

Ithuania-before speaking about that of which you know naught,i'd suggest a basic course in economics and the job market-nuthing to fancy,don't want to overtsrain youre clearly limited intellect-and then come back and speak with me.I don't want to hurt your charming naiveté,but youre employer's goal is to make money;the less he pays his workers,the more he makes.Thus,he pays them enough so that they don't go somewhere else,but just barely.

I don't detect a decline in the vitriol...

you have seriously pissed me off by sating ridicuolous ideas about a subject on which you know*desperately resists urge to FLAME*

btw,even youre capitalist right-wing pal possum admits minimum wages casues accross the board rises.

So I take it you don't care for reasoned debate? You're continuing the vitriol leads me to that conclusion, you know.

well,i don't think you have the basic knowledge for a resoned debate on this subject,but we can try,if you want.

which is why the minimum wage works so well worldwide,i am sure....countries like france and germany arn't any worse off for it-in fact,they have less balckmarketeering,and the minimum wage drove up emplyment when introduced.

No it didn't. Germany's unemployment is quite high. Schorder raising taxes was rather unpopular. Its economy is close to zero growth.

that's strnage,'cause the only reason you can afford the computer youre typing in is thanks to the existence of a minimum wage.clearly youre wrong.

How the hell do you figure? I've worked one minimum wage job my whole life and my parents bought me my computer anyway.

Minimum wage PREVENTS low-income people from getting higher incomes.

And without economic theory, all of your arguments are circumstantial at best and, just plain wrong most of the time.

Ithuania-before speaking about that of which you know naught,i'd suggest a basic course in economics and the job market-nuthing to fancy,don't want to overtsrain youre clearly limited intellect-and then come back and speak with me.I don't want to hurt your charming naiveté,but youre employer's goal is to make money;the less he pays his workers,the more he makes.Thus,he pays them enough so that they don't go somewhere else,but just barely.

"Just enough so they don't go somewhere else" is the equilibrium wage. That's what the employee's market value is.

Let's say the market value for a burger flipper is $5/hour. If McDonald's only pays $4, they will all go to Burger King and get $5. If you set the minimum wage at $6, and because economically unemployment varies with the SQUARE of the minimum wage, then something like 65% more people will be unemployed. So normally if you have 3 unemployed, now you have 5 people unemployed.

"Just enough so they don't go somewhere else" is the equilibrium wage. That's what the employee's market value is.

Let's say the market value for a burger flipper is $5/hour. If McDonald's only pays $4, they will all go to Burger King and get $5. If you set the minimum wage at $6, and because economically unemployment varies with the SQUARE of the minimum wage, then something like 65% more people will be unemployed. So normally if you have 3 unemployed, now you have 5 people unemployed.

Then, McDonald's AND Burger King will have to raise prices.

Then if it keeps going, they cannot afford to have as many employees. They fire a bunch. The unemployment rate again rises.

"Just enough so they don't go somewhere else" is the equilibrium wage. That's what the employee's market value is.

Let's say the market value for a burger flipper is $5/hour. If McDonald's only pays $4, they will all go to Burger King and get $5. If you set the minimum wage at $6, and because economically unemployment varies with the SQUARE of the minimum wage, then something like 65% more people will be unemployed. So normally if you have 3 unemployed, now you have 5 people unemployed.

Then, McDonald's AND Burger King will have to raise prices.

Then if it keeps going, they cannot afford to have as many employees. They fire a bunch. The unemployment rate again rises.

Yeah, as I said, it can be mathematically deduced from generally accepted economic models that:

Let's say E is equilibrium wage, and M is minimum wage and U is unemployment related to policy (I think it's called structural, but it might be frictional). It is not total unemployment, just one part of it.

U=(M-E)^2, when M>E

If teh minimum wage exceeds the equilibrium rate by 10%, the structural unemployment (which usually accounts for 20-25% of total unemployment) doubles, so unemployment in that field increases 20-25%. If minimum wage is double the equilibrium rate, then the structural unemployment is TEN THOUSAND times higher, i.e. almost nobody can find a job and your industry reliant on that minimum wage collapses.

A "living wage" of $12/hour is mathematically enough to shut down an industry that currently pays the $5.15 minimum wage.

oh yeah?just FYI,i wanst talking about schroder.minimum wage s old,and whenevr it was itnroduced,somehow it worked.You seem to be neglecting 2 factors:one,companies make substatial profits-these can be reduced without threatening the company itself,and 2 rpcies can and will rise,but not as much as the increase in salry,since some of the extra cost will be borne by profit reduction(in the long run,in capitlist economies the stock market will make up for this;i wont talk about socialist economies that work very differently).The overall effect is a rise in the standard of living,and decrease in growth(but inflation is linked to growth anyway...)

I have to add to this topic here. I haven't made a decision yet as to where I stand on this issue. The one thing that I can state is that some governments that offer work-training programs for ex., in nursing homes, offer the administrators half of the wage for a student in training. Most nursing homes gladly accept this offer from the government if it means they get cheap labor.

The student will receive their training and then after the program ends for them they are given the pink slip. This can be viewed as good money going after bad or as long as the government keeps offering the nursing homes the funding to go towards the wage the nursing home never has to put out a full wage from their own pockets.

I say this is an unfair balance. It drives up the un-employment rate and serves in keeping the care and treatment of the patients in the nursing homes at the mercy of either bad care or no care.

Increasing the miniumn wage with the contiunation of the funded work-training programs only serves to keep the nursing homes (or other buisnesses) in the money. They benefit not the worker.

I haven't read through all of this thread but, I can see that this is one of those "between a rock and a hard place" issues.

oh yeah?just FYI,i wanst talking about schirder.minimum wage s old,and whenevr it was itnroduced,somehow it worked.You seem to be neglecting 2 factors:one,companies make substatial profits-these can be reduced without threatening the company itself,and 2 rpcies can and will rise,but not as much as the increase in salry,since some of the extra cost will be borne by profit reduction(in the long run,in capitlist economies the stock market will make up for this;i wont talk about socialist economies that work very differently).The overall effect is a rise in the standard of living,and decrease in growth(but inflation is linked to growth anyway...)

Profit reduction also prevents growth. Go take some economics please.

Minimum wage has always caused problems. Let's see:
Germany has Europe's highest minimum wage. Not surprisingly, it also has the highest unemployment in Western Europe. German workers are now striking over high taxes, many sending Gerhard Schroeder T-Shirts inscribed on them the German phrase, "Take my last shirt."

In the US, minimum wage has forced Hispanic workers in California to either go hungry or take black market jobs for less than their equilibrium rate. Sometimes, those black market employers even refuse to pay those workers, so they are screwed.

Tell the Mexican laborer who is happy to work for $4/hour but can't find a legal $4/hour job because of the minimum wage makes him unemployable, that the minimum wage increases his standard of living.

The minimum wage affects the least employable people in America. It makes them unemployable.

oh yeah?just FYI,i wanst talking about schroder.minimum wage s old,and whenevr it was itnroduced,somehow it worked.You seem to be neglecting 2 factors:one,companies make substatial profits-these can be reduced without threatening the company itself,and 2 rpcies can and will rise,but not as much as the increase in salry,since some of the extra cost will be borne by profit reduction(in the long run,in capitlist economies the stock market will make up for this;i wont talk about socialist economies that work very differently).The overall effect is a rise in the standard of living,and decrease in growth(but inflation is linked to growth anyway...)

Just the cost of living will drastically increase... Just because people will have more money doesn't mean they can afford the same things.

oh yeah?just FYI,i wanst talking about schirder.minimum wage s old,and whenevr it was itnroduced,somehow it worked.You seem to be neglecting 2 factors:one,companies make substatial profits-these can be reduced without threatening the company itself,and 2 rpcies can and will rise,but not as much as the increase in salry,since some of the extra cost will be borne by profit reduction(in the long run,in capitlist economies the stock market will make up for this;i wont talk about socialist economies that work very differently).The overall effect is a rise in the standard of living,and decrease in growth(but inflation is linked to growth anyway...)

Profit reduction also prevents growth. Go take some economics please.

Minimum wage has always caused problems. Let's see:
Germany has Europe's highest minimum wage. Not surprisingly, it also has the highest unemployment in Western Europe. German workers are now striking over high taxes, many sending Gerhard Schroeder T-Shirts inscribed on them the German phrase, "Take my last shirt."

In the US, minimum wage has forced Hispanic workers in California to either go hungry or take black market jobs for less than their equilibrium rate. Sometimes, those black market employers even refuse to pay those workers, so they are screwed.

Tell the Mexican laborer who is happy to work for $4/hour but can't find a legal $4/hour job because of the minimum wage makes him unemployable, that the minimum wage increases his standard of living.

The minimum wage affects the least employable people in America. It makes them unemployable.

Here are statistics provided in support of my arguments:

When Clinton raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15, here were the results in unemployment:

Males, aged 15 to 19: Unemployment increased 6.7%
Males, aged 20 to 24: Unemployment increased 4.4%
Males, aged 25 to 64: Unemployment increased 2.1%
Males, aged 65 to 69: Unemployment increased 1.1%
Women, aged 15 to 19: Unemployment increased 5.4%
Women, aged 20 to 24: Unemployment increased 2.8%
Women, aged 25 to 64: Unemployment increased 0.2%
Women, aged 65 to 69: Unemployment decreased 0.5%

So with the exception of old ladies, teh minimum wage hurt everyone.
These aren't low-income stats, these are overall stats. If you want to measure low income only, unemployment may very well have gone from say 10% to 20 or 25% because of the minimum waged.

i said very clearly that prfit cuts would hurt growth;however reducing growth reduces infaltion("growth" is enarly as artificial a conecpt in capitlism as the stock market).Youre massively overstating German situation-german stockmarket(the emasure of allt higns in capitalism) is growing at 4 to 5 times that of the american in the last week,and germanunemployment is not highest in europe-it is english unemployment(one of the lowest minimum wages in europe).Also,i suggest you check salries in countries without minimum wage,where equilibrium wage never even comes close to 1$ per hour.

as a counterexample,i'll take thatcherite england,where the anti-minimum-wage policy had the same effect u ascribe to german high minimum wage.Tho i'll give that a high minimum wage,inserted at random and not as part of a ocial-economic plan is kindof like pushing a button and waiting to see what happens(the reason of the failure under clinton).

This can not work. I am for the wage but my minimum wage can not be the same as others. My ecomony can't handle it. Each nation must set there own minimum wage. It CAN NOT be set by the UN.

not a s a monetary value,but as a proportion of youre economy,what would you say to that?

oh and TGM,i blame the failed minmum wages of the past on the liberalist sytem.try simulating a non-liberal(not necessarlly socialist,but left leaning cappitalism for instance) economy for a change.it works better for evryon,barring the big business owners.

oh yeah?employers pay peole the least they can and still have a workforce ,idiot.why do you think a minimum wage was necessary,asshole?because employers were paying their worforce enough to lead,clean,confortable lives,i suppose?

You've obviously never negotiated for your wages before. Employers do pay the people the least they can and still have a work force. That is true. But that has NOTHING to do with minimum wage.

If you constantly work to improve yourself and make yourself valuable, you gain the ability to tell the employers what they are going to pay you. If they won't, you can go to someone who will.

Before you get the wrong impression about me or what I am talking about, let me give an example. My first job (US Navy) paid $12,000 per year (salary, no overtime), but when I went to work I focused on doing the best job I could. I learned all of the details that I could about the equiment, and I studied all of the procedures until I could do them in my sleep.
My supervisors noticed, I got good evaluations, and I was promoted 3 times in the 6 years that I was there. By the time I was finished, I was making about 30K per year, but I still lived off of that initial 12K. I used the rest of the money to get through school (while most of my shipmates were spending their money on beer). After finishing my Associate's degree, I started job hunting. I turned down 6 job offers because they weren't offering me enough. Soon afterward, I accepted an offer for $80K. Why was I able to do this? Because I didn't just go through the motions at work. I busted my ass!
My point here is this: In the Navy, I was working 60-70 hours per week. If you crunch the math, you'll find that it was significantly less than the minimum wage at the time. In fact, EVERY person in the military is making far less than the minimum wage.
But I made myself valuable, and so I can now dictate how much my pay is going to be (obviously within reason). Also, I am continuing to make myself valuable to my employers so that I can command (note that:command, not demand) more at my next job shift.
Minimum wage means nothing to me because I have worked for LESS than minimum wage and have still been able to thrive. Minimum wage is not what made me successful.

the military also fed you,clothed you,and house dyou for most of the year.this payment "en nature" should not be neglected.

the military also fed you,clothed you,and house dyou for most of the year.this payment "en nature" should not be neglected.

It wasn't neglected. It was included. My first paychecks were just over $300 every two weeks. You do the math.

The Navy has a "salary calculator" that they use to determine the value of all of your benefits (food, uniforms, tax breaks, etc). The $12,000 value takes that into account.

ah,i didn't know that...well,all i can say is good for you,you hlped good luck to happen.

What about those nations that have collapsed their economies?

not a s a monetary value,but as a proportion of youre economy,what would you say to that?

Still can't work. Lets just say that we set it at 5% the GNP. That doesn't mean Nation "A" can handle it. Nation "B" might be able to at even 10% but not nation "A". that economy can only handle .00001%. Are you willing to give finanical aid too ALL nations that will suffer. I knwwo I can't afford to do that.

ah,i didn't know that...well,all i can say is good for you,you hlped good luck to happen.

It's more than that, though.

Setting a minimum wage (and more importantly, increasing a minimum wage) is raising the cost for unskilled labor. That's all it is. Businesses that pay for unskilled labor have a budget that they must meet. If the minimum wage increases, the the budget still has to be met. That means pink slips.

Every person, at some point in his life (usually early on), will probably have to do unskilled labor (and thus get a very small amount of pay) to get by. If that person doesn't sieze the opportunity and develope a skill, then he doesn't "deserve" anything more than what that wage can afford. No cars, Food, better housing, etc. Nothing.

However, if that person uses that opportunity to grow, works hard, studies, and learns the job well, then he WILL earn better pay. I know people who started 10 years ago as burger flippers at McDonalds. Two of them are now store managers, and one is a district manager making $70,000 per year. I also know a guy who has worked at that same McDonalds for 20 years and still cuts just a little bit over minimum wage.
This just shows that it doesn't matter what type of work you are trying to do. If you are willing to put the extra effort into a job, you will get more. If not, you deserve whatever the employer is willing to pay, nothing more.

The problem with setting and raising a minimum wage is that it ends up being a pay cut for everyone who is making more than minimum wage. The guy who has worked at McD for over 20 years did get several raises. At one point he was nearly 2 dollars over the minimum wage and was doing OK. Then they raised the minimum wage, and he was back at the bottom again. The employer will not raise the pay of those that have worked there for a long time to preserve their raises above minimum wage.

ah,i didn't know that...well,all i can say is good for you,you hlped good luck to happen.

It's more than that, though.

Setting a minimum wage (and more importantly, increasing a minimum wage) is raising the cost for unskilled labor. That's all it is. Businesses that pay for unskilled labor have a budget that they must meet. If the minimum wage increases, the the budget still has to be met. That means pink slips.

Every person, at some point in his life (usually early on), will probably have to do unskilled labor (and thus get a very small amount of pay) to get by. If that person doesn't sieze the opportunity and develope a skill, then he doesn't "deserve" anything more than what that wage can afford. No cars, Food, better housing, etc. Nothing.

However, if that person uses that opportunity to grow, works hard, studies, and learns the job well, then he WILL earn better pay. I know people who started 10 years ago as burger flippers at McDonalds. Two of them are now store managers, and one is a district manager making $70,000 per year. I also know a guy who has worked at that same McDonalds for 20 years and still cuts just a little bit over minimum wage.
This just shows that it doesn't matter what type of work you are trying to do. If you are willing to put the extra effort into a job, you will get more. If not, you deserve whatever the employer is willing to pay, nothing more.

The problem with setting and raising a minimum wage is that it ends up being a pay cut for everyone who is making more than minimum wage. The guy who has worked at McD for over 20 years did get several raises. At one point he was nearly 2 dollars over the minimum wage and was doing OK. Then they raised the minimum wage, and he was back at the bottom again. The employer will not raise the pay of those that have worked there for a long time to preserve their raises above minimum wage.

As I said, you can mathematically demonstrate that a 20-25% increase in the minimum wage will double the unemployment in that job.

not a s a monetary value,but as a proportion of youre economy,what would you say to that?

Still can't work. Lets just say that we set it at 5% the GNP. That doesn't mean Nation "A" can handle it. Nation "B" might be able to at even 10% but not nation "A". that economy can only handle .00001%. Are you willing to give finanical aid too ALL nations that will suffer. I knwwo I can't afford to do that.

Besides, GNP is less accurate at measuring a country's total economy than GDP, because GNP includes foreign investment. So like if the US multinational creates a factory in Uganda, it is part of the US's GNP, but not part of its GDP (it is technically part of Uganda's GDP). And since the factory is helping Uganda develop, it is better to count it as GDP.

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

They already have that. Its called communism. But they give you mad amounts of health care and education, or so I hear...

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

They already have that. Its called communism. But they give you mad amounts of health care and education, or so I hear...

I don't know. I think capping it at a million pints of blood would do it.

[
I totally agree with a minimum wage. Ours is 20 americans per hour-$100/hour in the U.S.

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

Interesting, but it has been shown that if people in power have salaries that are set too low, they become more prone to corruption. If a corporate executive feels he is not getting paid enough, then he will use his position to get kickbacks from sources other than his own company. I am not advocating that executives get paid the absolute maximum that the bottom line allows, but their pay should not be so low that they end up caring more about raising their own income than about doing their jobs well.

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

A maximum wage is based on the same concept as the minimum wage. Both are VERY economically unsound, and both will cause similiar problems, such as a black market, lost efficiency, lost P/C surplus, etc.

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

A maximum wage is based on the same concept as the minimum wage. Both are VERY economically unsound, and both will cause similiar problems, such as a black market, lost efficiency, lost P/C surplus, etc.

You should have at least some minimum wage (like 0) and I think maybe some jobs do need income caps. What happens if the CEO makes more money than the company?

I have a better idea. Why don't we have a maximum wage law?

A maximum wage is based on the same concept as the minimum wage. Both are VERY economically unsound, and both will cause similiar problems, such as a black market, lost efficiency, lost P/C surplus, etc.

You should have at least some minimum wage (like 0) and I think maybe some jobs do need income caps. What happens if the CEO makes more money than the company?

The stock plummets, the company goes under, and the CEO never gets employment again because he's too stupid to manage anything (A lot of dot com companies had this strategy). Meanwhile the world laughs at them, and the jobs of the stupid company are subsumed by competitors who have a market share swell because of the loss of a major competitor.

In essense, nothing except that we learn that some people are too stupid to hold power :)

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

So in other words, you don't think that employees and employers should be free to make their own agreements without outside influence?

You hold a very amoral belief, and your support of slavery is duly noted. Thank you for your input.

Kurt Weber

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

So in other words, you don't think that employees and employers should be free to make their own agreements without outside influence?

You hold a very amoral belief, and your support of slavery is duly noted. Thank you for your input.

Kurt Weber

Slavery? If you are refering to my previous posting I don't even know how to answer this charge; what are you talking about?

I can also mention an immoral or amoral act with no relation to your beliefs, I have no more supported slavery than you have rape

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

Well I'm sure it could be arranged that richer countries could be taxed money to fund this minimum wage

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

Well I'm sure it could be arranged that richer countries could be taxed money to fund this minimum wage

Then all the rich countries will get together and blow you to hell.

We're tired of giving you money just because you don't know how to run your economy well.

[
I totally agree with a minimum wage. Ours is 20 americans per hour-$100/hour in the U.S.

Well according to the Nationstates GDP Calculator, your GDP per capita is only $500, so unless you're saying that all of your citizens only work five hours a year, I don't see how that would work....

What is the cost of living index for that country or any other?

What if "For pennies a day" you can feed the people?

Minimum wage laws are needed to stop giant corporations from employing slave labour. Let's have them across the board as soon as possible.

Minimum wage laws are needed to stop giant corporations from employing slave labour. Let's have them across the board as soon as possible.

The tax rate in Wilkshire is already 57%...sounds like you already have slave labor.

Minimum wage laws are needed to stop giant corporations from employing slave labour. Let's have them across the board as soon as possible.

The tax rate in Wilkshire is already 57%...sounds like you already have slave labor.

Good one!

No matter how I look at it, it doesn't matter to me. I can give them a billion times what I pay them but with a 100% tax rate, it all comes back to me.

Does that qualify as slavery?

No matter how I look at it, it doesn't matter to me. I can give them a billion times what I pay them but with a 100% tax rate, it all comes back to me.

Does that qualify as slavery?

I would say that qualifies as slavery.

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

Well I'm sure it could be arranged that richer countries could be taxed money to fund this minimum wage

Then all the rich countries will get together and blow you to hell.

We're tired of giving you money just because you don't know how to run your economy well.

Good to see rich capitalist countries are as caring and diplomatic as ever.
Has it never occured to you the greatess thing you can do is help the needy? Have you not realised war is not a satisfactory answer to problems?

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

Well I'm sure it could be arranged that richer countries could be taxed money to fund this minimum wage

Then all the rich countries will get together and blow you to hell.

We're tired of giving you money just because you don't know how to run your economy well.

Good to see rich capitalist countries are as caring and diplomatic as ever.
Has it never occured to you the greatess thing you can do is help the needy? Have you not realised war is not a satisfactory answer to problems?

The poor countries are poor because their governments are bad. That isn't our problem. My country's army is very small though I have a quite large arms proudction industry. It is morally wrong for a country to steal from another country, regardless of how rich it is. My country is willing to defend its rights and property if commies try to steal it.

War isn't a satisfactory answer to problems; that is prefectly correct. But mooching and robing other countries isn't the solution either. Free trade is.

As many have suggested,

DON'T let the individual country set it's own optional minimum wage.

If they can afford to make the minimum wage higher they should do so but ,
don't let the system become open to abuse,
we can all imagine how some nations could make this law meaningless,
by simply setting a really low minimum wage,
the wage should be universal and stand up to all oppressive employers.

If an economy can not support it then it will crash. Unemployement will go on the rise in those countries. Then what? Maybe we will let all of the unemployed flee to your country since you can support them.

Well I'm sure it could be arranged that richer countries could be taxed money to fund this minimum wage

Then all the rich countries will get together and blow you to hell.

We're tired of giving you money just because you don't know how to run your economy well.

Good to see rich capitalist countries are as caring and diplomatic as ever.
Has it never occured to you the greatess thing you can do is help the needy? Have you not realised war is not a satisfactory answer to problems?

The poor countries are poor because their governments are bad. That isn't our problem. My country's army is very small though I have a quite large arms proudction industry. It is morally wrong for a country to steal from another country, regardless of how rich it is. My country is willing to defend its rights and property if commies try to steal it.

War isn't a satisfactory answer to problems; that is prefectly correct. But mooching and robing other countries isn't the solution either. Free trade is.

If poor countries are too lazy and corrupt to become rich countries- they dont realistically have much chance of coercing hard working rich nations into helping them do they? Besides Charity begins at home- rich nations have poor people of their own to help. Never forget- build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life. The poor nations should be capable of solving their own problems without begging//leeching from the rich nations.

Good to see rich capitalist countries are as caring and diplomatic as ever.
Has it never occured to you the greatess thing you can do is help the needy? Have you not realised war is not a satisfactory answer to problems?

The mistake you make is that Countries and Governments don't "help the needy"...People do. What does war have to do with this topic?

Good to see rich capitalist countries are as caring and diplomatic as ever.
Has it never occured to you the greatess thing you can do is help the needy? Have you not realised war is not a satisfactory answer to problems?

The mistake you make is that Countries and Governments don't "help the needy"...People do. What does war have to do with this topic?

I said that if the poor countries try to tax the rich countries to fund their own minimum wage programs (I don't see how that would work, since corporations are the biggest employers anyways), then quote, "all the rich countries will get together and blow you to hell." He somehow assumed it was a hostile response.

Don't get me wrong, rich countries such as my own are perfectly willing to invest in poor countries. But part of an investment is getting something back, namely the creation of a market which will make people richer and also allow us to increase investment. Money is to be earned, not given.