NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

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?

Governments are made up of people

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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

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.

I am aware that the largest employer of people are corporations but this can also be solved, greater regulation of these corporations could mean that instead of governments being taxed, as I intially said and still stick to in some circumstances, corporate executives and the like could be taxed more, in order for a universal minimum wage to be implemented, the implementation of a maximum wage could be a neccessary tool in spreading equality accross the world.

standard minimum wage is not a good idea, because different countries have greatly differing expenses of living. for 100 dollars, i can very comfortably spend a day in a place like indonesia, but 100 bucks will not get me nearly the same standard of living in new york, for instance.

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.

I am aware that the largest employer of people are corporations but this can also be solved, greater regulation of these corporations could mean that instead of governments being taxed, as I intially said and still stick to in some circumstances, corporate executives and the like could be taxed more, in order for a universal minimum wage to be implemented, the implementation of a maximum wage could be a neccessary tool in spreading equality accross the world.

Corporate execs in America already pay 50% or more in taxes.

Greater regulation means those corporations wouldn't wnat to do business in the poor countries, thus keeping those countries poor.

Some poor countries would loosen regulation, attracting corporations, and making them rich.

The implementation of a maximum wage creates lost economic efficiency, same as a minimum wage. They both create a black market.

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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

Free trade isn't practiced globally. You don't have free trade in North Korea. In fact, no one can enter or leave North Korea without a government permit. On the other hand, China, which has allowed free trade has moved its government from a communist to a moderate fascist model, and is making steps, albeit small steps but steps nonetheless, towards democracy and more capitalism. All because of free trade.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that keep putting their customers on hold tend to crumble faster."

And the only reason I need a defense budget is to protect my country from liberals like you who want to come, steal its money, and wreck it.

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.

I am aware that the largest employer of people are corporations but this can also be solved, greater regulation of these corporations could mean that instead of governments being taxed, as I intially said and still stick to in some circumstances, corporate executives and the like could be taxed more, in order for a universal minimum wage to be implemented, the implementation of a maximum wage could be a neccessary tool in spreading equality accross the world.

Corporate execs in America already pay 50% or more in taxes.

Greater regulation means those corporations wouldn't wnat to do business in the poor countries, thus keeping those countries poor.

Some poor countries would loosen regulation, attracting corporations, and making them rich.

The implementation of a maximum wage creates lost economic efficiency, same as a minimum wage. They both create a black market.

Many corporate execs do not pay their taxes, 50% is also not a suitable percentage to be taxing the very richest;

If an exec gets 1million a year, a pretty miserly sum in comparison to many, then they still have 0.5million, more money than most will have in there whole lives.

You may be correct on the second point, but the money for these nations can come from the system of global taxes I speak of and there own self reliance both of these bringing money to their previously impoverished people.

The countries mentioned in your third point, as I already say, would become rich through the global tax system and their self reliance, governments would no longer be corrupt as human rights and democracy, also included in global legislation, would mean corruption and oppression could take less forms.

The rest of my argument has dealt with this point already. The system of greater cooperation and donation between state regulated economies will mean this and minimum wage are possible.

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.

I am aware that the largest employer of people are corporations but this can also be solved, greater regulation of these corporations could mean that instead of governments being taxed, as I intially said and still stick to in some circumstances, corporate executives and the like could be taxed more, in order for a universal minimum wage to be implemented, the implementation of a maximum wage could be a neccessary tool in spreading equality accross the world.

Corporate execs in America already pay 50% or more in taxes.

Greater regulation means those corporations wouldn't wnat to do business in the poor countries, thus keeping those countries poor.

Some poor countries would loosen regulation, attracting corporations, and making them rich.

The implementation of a maximum wage creates lost economic efficiency, same as a minimum wage. They both create a black market.


Also a universal minimum wage that was actually put into practice would either be so low as to have no effect in rich nations or would be so high within poor nations that no body in the poor nations would be able to hire employees.Rich nations are currently able to invest in poor nations and get labour cheap.If Labour is available at a universal minimum wage level then the rich nations will have *no reason whatsoever* to invest in the poor ones.If wage costs are the same in the US as in indonesia then Nike will save on transport costs- shut the indonesian factory and make the bloody sneakers where they are mainly sold(us and europe).
A universal minimum wage would mean that chinese labour could no longer produce goods at a lower cost than north american//european workers- this would strangle chinas blooming economy.A universal minimum wage would make it impossible for the third world to work its way out of poverty.They would instead become permanent vassals of whatever organisation was set up to supply funds to pay the "universal minimum wage".
Wether intentional or not- the universal minimum wage- destroys all opportunity for poor countries to ever rise above poverty through their own efforts.It would wipe out investment in the third world since labour costs would be the same globally- with that in mind what jobs would the universal minimum wage workers in poor nations actually be doing? Since manufacturing industry would be relocated to the main markets for manufactured goods(north america- europe- japan and parts of south-east asia) to save on transport costs- after all if it costs the same to make something in Chicago as it does in Calcutta- but your main market is in Chicago-- are you gonna be dumb enough to build the factory in Calcutta?

[quote:f5022c10e7="Teaigenal"]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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

Free trade isn't practiced globally. You don't have free trade in North Korea. In fact, no one can enter or leave North Korea without a government permit. On the other hand, China, which has allowed free trade has moved its government from a communist to a moderate fascist model, and is making steps, albeit small steps but steps nonetheless, towards democracy and more capitalism. All because of free trade.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that keep putting their customers on hold tend to crumble faster."

And the only reason I need a defense budget is to protect my country from liberals like you who want to come, steal its money, and wreck it.[/quote:f5022c10e7]

Free trade is practised in other undesirable dictatorships, for example, America's puppet Karimov's Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe too, contrary to popular belief, has one of the most capitalist economies around. Even in USA 24 million or 24thousand, the number is pretty big, are below the poverty line. The former Yugoslavia, though obviously I am glad of Milosovich's departure,has still not become wealthy due to free trade reforms as promised.

I think the least of your worries should be "liberals" like me, I am propsing a system for global equality.

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.

I am aware that the largest employer of people are corporations but this can also be solved, greater regulation of these corporations could mean that instead of governments being taxed, as I intially said and still stick to in some circumstances, corporate executives and the like could be taxed more, in order for a universal minimum wage to be implemented, the implementation of a maximum wage could be a neccessary tool in spreading equality accross the world.

Corporate execs in America already pay 50% or more in taxes.

Greater regulation means those corporations wouldn't wnat to do business in the poor countries, thus keeping those countries poor.

Some poor countries would loosen regulation, attracting corporations, and making them rich.

The implementation of a maximum wage creates lost economic efficiency, same as a minimum wage. They both create a black market.


Also a universal minimum wage that was actually put into practice would either be so low as to have no effect in rich nations or would be so high within poor nations that no body in the poor nations would be able to hire employees.Rich nations are currently able to invest in poor nations and get labour cheap.If Labour is available at a universal minimum wage level then the rich nations will have *no reason whatsoever* to invest in the poor ones.If wage costs are the same in the US as in indonesia then Nike will save on transport costs- shut the indonesian factory and make the bloody sneakers where they are mainly sold(us and europe).
A universal minimum wage would mean that chinese labour could no longer produce goods at a lower cost than north american//european workers- this would strangle chinas blooming economy.A universal minimum wage would make it impossible for the third world to work its way out of poverty.They would instead become permanent vassals of whatever organisation was set up to supply funds to pay the "universal minimum wage".
Wether intentional or not- the universal minimum wage- destroys all opportunity for poor countries to ever rise above poverty through their own efforts.It would wipe out investment in the third world since labour costs would be the same globally- with that in mind what jobs would the universal minimum wage workers in poor nations actually be doing? Since manufacturing industry would be relocated to the main markets for manufactured goods(north america- europe- japan and parts of south-east asia) to save on transport costs- after all if it costs the same to make something in Chicago as it does in Calcutta- but your main market is in Chicago-- are you gonna be dumb enough to build the factory in Calcutta?

The only form of employment is not global corporations, people employed by the state or by local businesses or who are self employed, if many people were employed in these ways it would create more pathways for people. Also the world may work differently to how you say under proposals such as mine. There wouldn't really be rich and poor countries, the money would belong to a world money body collected from all nations corporations and persons this money would be distributed fairly. It is rather like a system of paying income tax to a government and everyone getting uses of public services and provided money if they are poor (state welfare). The difference is this system is introduced globally as though systems such as this provide greater equality for citizens in a given nation it is often at the expense of others in the non Industrialised world.

[quote:156d1a7898="Slippermen"][quote:156d1a7898="Teaigenal"]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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

Free trade isn't practiced globally. You don't have free trade in North Korea. In fact, no one can enter or leave North Korea without a government permit. On the other hand, China, which has allowed free trade has moved its government from a communist to a moderate fascist model, and is making steps, albeit small steps but steps nonetheless, towards democracy and more capitalism. All because of free trade.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that keep putting their customers on hold tend to crumble faster."

And the only reason I need a defense budget is to protect my country from liberals like you who want to come, steal its money, and wreck it.[/quote:156d1a7898]

Free trade is practised in other undesirable dictatorships, for example, America's puppet Karimov's Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe too, contrary to popular belief, has one of the most capitalist economies around. Even in USA 24 million or 24thousand, the number is pretty big, are below the poverty line. The former Yugoslavia, though obviously I am glad of Milosovich's departure,has still not become wealthy due to free trade reforms as promised.

I think the least of your worries should be "liberals" like me, I am propsing a system for global equality.[/quote:156d1a7898]

Avtually, according to economic freedom journals Zimbawbwe, while capitlaist compare to other countries in its region, is not capitalist compared to other third world nations in East Asia.

Milosevic has been gone what? 5, 6 years? Yugoslavia's problems primarily come from ethnic hatred and rivalry. No economic system will fix that. But capitalism helps. And capitalism takes around 10 years, this is different for every nation of course, to have a real appreciable positive effect on an economy. China, for example, declared "market socialism" (i.e. a mild form of fascism, transition to capitalism) in 1990, but it wasn't until 1998/99 that it had the 7.5 to 8% yearly growth it does today.

In addition, a state cannot transition from socialism to capitalism immediately. The transition must be done more gradually, which is why I approve of Chinese market socialism even though it isn't actually capitalist, it is a necessary transition state.

As for multinationals not being the only employers you are right, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country where everyone worked for the government. In addition, capital from multinationals always helps.

By the way if people in my country really want to have the minimum wage they are free to move to your country.

[quote:fd74411015="Teaigenal"][quote:fd74411015="Slippermen"][quote:fd74411015="Teaigenal"]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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

Free trade isn't practiced globally. You don't have free trade in North Korea. In fact, no one can enter or leave North Korea without a government permit. On the other hand, China, which has allowed free trade has moved its government from a communist to a moderate fascist model, and is making steps, albeit small steps but steps nonetheless, towards democracy and more capitalism. All because of free trade.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that keep putting their customers on hold tend to crumble faster."

And the only reason I need a defense budget is to protect my country from liberals like you who want to come, steal its money, and wreck it.[/quote:fd74411015]

Free trade is practised in other undesirable dictatorships, for example, America's puppet Karimov's Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe too, contrary to popular belief, has one of the most capitalist economies around. Even in USA 24 million or 24thousand, the number is pretty big, are below the poverty line. The former Yugoslavia, though obviously I am glad of Milosovich's departure,has still not become wealthy due to free trade reforms as promised.

I think the least of your worries should be "liberals" like me, I am propsing a system for global equality.[/quote:fd74411015]

Avtually, according to economic freedom journals Zimbawbwe, while capitlaist compare to other countries in its region, is not capitalist compared to other third world nations in East Asia.

Milosevic has been gone what? 5, 6 years? Yugoslavia's problems primarily come from ethnic hatred and rivalry. No economic system will fix that. But capitalism helps. And capitalism takes around 10 years, this is different for every nation of course, to have a real appreciable positive effect on an economy. China, for example, declared "market socialism" (i.e. a mild form of fascism, transition to capitalism) in 1990, but it wasn't until 1998/99 that it had the 7.5 to 8% yearly growth it does today.

In addition, a state cannot transition from socialism to capitalism immediately. The transition must be done more gradually, which is why I approve of Chinese market socialism even though it isn't actually capitalist, it is a necessary transition state.

As for multinationals not being the only employers you are right, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country where everyone worked for the government. In addition, capital from multinationals always helps.[/quote:fd74411015]

Capitalism takes 10 years, where is this fact from? Based on what? Over 10 years ago Russia became capitalist, some, NOT all I did not and would not support the USSR, people are poorer, while others say nothing has changed.

Yes, many of Former Yugoslavia's problems come from ethnic hatred and rivalry, these are not relevant to the discussion, but there are problems in Former Yugoslavia which are caused by privatisation and other freemarket reforms.

You say the change from a socialistic economy to a capitalist ones takes 10 years before it works, could the case not be made the other way round?As the problems of absolute capitalism are clear to see (as are those of absolute socialism) could we graduly and without revolution move towards a fairer system of economics and employment?

[quote:f24390f993="The Global Market"][quote:f24390f993="Teaigenal"][quote:f24390f993="Slippermen"][quote:f24390f993="Teaigenal"]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.

The people within the "poor country" are not at fault if the government is not good, therefore rich countries should help what I have called earlier "the needy" both within their country and in others. You will say that there is not enough money to do this; this can easily be solved; look at the amount spent on defence by major governments, a large (possibly in the future, even full) cut in spending of this nature would help.

My defense spending is less than 1% of my GDP, (that's a quarter of America's BTW). Even if the people in that country are not at fault when you give money to them it ends up in the hands of the government. And if you lefties would stop threatening to steal my country's money, then I would need even less money spent on defense.

The solution is to allow more free trade between nations, which helps to collapse oppressive governments over time.

Maybe the large defence spending I refer to is not applicable to your nation, if it is not I applaud you.

Free trade doesn't really help collapse oppressive governments in the world today there many oppressive governments, both of us could give many examples, but yet today free trade is practised globally.

Free trade isn't practiced globally. You don't have free trade in North Korea. In fact, no one can enter or leave North Korea without a government permit. On the other hand, China, which has allowed free trade has moved its government from a communist to a moderate fascist model, and is making steps, albeit small steps but steps nonetheless, towards democracy and more capitalism. All because of free trade.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that keep putting their customers on hold tend to crumble faster."

And the only reason I need a defense budget is to protect my country from liberals like you who want to come, steal its money, and wreck it.[/quote:f24390f993]

Free trade is practised in other undesirable dictatorships, for example, America's puppet Karimov's Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe too, contrary to popular belief, has one of the most capitalist economies around. Even in USA 24 million or 24thousand, the number is pretty big, are below the poverty line. The former Yugoslavia, though obviously I am glad of Milosovich's departure,has still not become wealthy due to free trade reforms as promised.

I think the least of your worries should be "liberals" like me, I am propsing a system for global equality.[/quote:f24390f993]

Avtually, according to economic freedom journals Zimbawbwe, while capitlaist compare to other countries in its region, is not capitalist compared to other third world nations in East Asia.

Milosevic has been gone what? 5, 6 years? Yugoslavia's problems primarily come from ethnic hatred and rivalry. No economic system will fix that. But capitalism helps. And capitalism takes around 10 years, this is different for every nation of course, to have a real appreciable positive effect on an economy. China, for example, declared "market socialism" (i.e. a mild form of fascism, transition to capitalism) in 1990, but it wasn't until 1998/99 that it had the 7.5 to 8% yearly growth it does today.

In addition, a state cannot transition from socialism to capitalism immediately. The transition must be done more gradually, which is why I approve of Chinese market socialism even though it isn't actually capitalist, it is a necessary transition state.

As for multinationals not being the only employers you are right, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country where everyone worked for the government. In addition, capital from multinationals always helps.[/quote:f24390f993]

Capitalism takes 10 years, where is this fact from? Based on what? Over 10 years ago Russia became capitalist, some, NOT all I did not and would not support the USSR, people are poorer, while others say nothing has changed.

Yes, many of Former Yugoslavia's problems come from ethnic hatred and rivalry, these are not relevant to the discussion, but there are problems in Former Yugoslavia which are caused by privatisation and other freemarket reforms.

You say the change from a socialistic economy to a capitalist ones takes 10 years before it works, could the case not be made the other way round?As the problems of absolute capitalism are clear to see (as are those of absolute socialism) could we graduly and without revolution move towards a fairer system of economics and employment?[/quote:f24390f993]

Russia's transition didn't work because it was done with no moderation. Then it stopped altogether. Such that, in 1992 Russia and China had similiar ratings in the Glossary of Economic Freedom, by 1994, Russia was labelled more capitalist than China, though both had become more capitalist. Eventually Russia's rating stabilized but every year China became slightly more capitalist. Now, China's rating is considerably more capitalist than Russia's and it is doing better. But still, the Russian economy is showing signs of doing better than in the lat eeighties. The transition from capitalism to socialism, done slowly, would cause a country to become a welfare state. When done slowly, it becomes a welfare state more slowly. But I can't think of any states that really transitioned from capitalism to socialism slowly because commies have a nasty tendency of always sezing powers in coups or revolutions.

The problems of transition are mainly related to per capita income, as Thomas Friedman notes, capitalism and socialism are like operating systems and society is the computer with per capita income being the processor speed. A good OS can increase processor speed, but the processor speed itself must speed up faster to support a better OS.

Which is why China's cities are capitalist but its rural areas are still quite anticapitalist.

We've gotta stop these quote pyramids!

Global Market said;

Russia's transition didn't work because it was done with no moderation. Then it stopped altogether. Such that, in 1992 Russia and China had similiar ratings in the Glossary of Economic Freedom, by 1994, Russia was labelled more capitalist than China, though both had become more capitalist. Eventually Russia's rating stabilized but every year China became slightly more capitalist. Now, China's rating is considerably more capitalist than Russia's and it is doing better. But still, the Russian economy is showing signs of doing better than in the lat eeighties. The transition from capitalism to socialism, done slowly, would cause a country to become a welfare state. When done slowly, it becomes a welfare state more slowly. But I can't think of any states that really transitioned from capitalism to socialism slowly because commies have a nasty tendency of always sezing powers in coups or revolutions.

The problems of transition are mainly related to per capita income, as Thomas Friedman notes, capitalism and socialism are like operating systems and society is the computer with per capita income being the processor speed. A good OS can increase processor speed, but the processor speed itself must speed up faster to support a better OS.

Which is why China's cities are capitalist but its rural areas are still quite anticapitalist.



Yes we must stop the quote pyramids.

No I can think of no state which has gone from capitalism to socialism slowly, but I think your statement that "commies" get power through coups etc, is not paticularily relevent, I see the flaws in violent revolution, I would hope most others with views similar to me would too and the new system, which faciliates the minimum wage and other steps to equality, must learn from the mistakes of previous leftwing attempts to improve matters.

People may well decide things need changing by voting differently or non violently protesting. This could aid the gradual transfer which would distribute money more equally.

Also in the reply I gave before this one I missed a point I will now refer to. As you say Zimbabwe has the most capitalist economy in the area, it also has the economy which is worst in the area, proof the free market is not all you say.

Global Market said;

Russia's transition didn't work because it was done with no moderation. Then it stopped altogether. Such that, in 1992 Russia and China had similiar ratings in the Glossary of Economic Freedom, by 1994, Russia was labelled more capitalist than China, though both had become more capitalist. Eventually Russia's rating stabilized but every year China became slightly more capitalist. Now, China's rating is considerably more capitalist than Russia's and it is doing better. But still, the Russian economy is showing signs of doing better than in the lat eeighties. The transition from capitalism to socialism, done slowly, would cause a country to become a welfare state. When done slowly, it becomes a welfare state more slowly. But I can't think of any states that really transitioned from capitalism to socialism slowly because commies have a nasty tendency of always sezing powers in coups or revolutions.

The problems of transition are mainly related to per capita income, as Thomas Friedman notes, capitalism and socialism are like operating systems and society is the computer with per capita income being the processor speed. A good OS can increase processor speed, but the processor speed itself must speed up faster to support a better OS.

Which is why China's cities are capitalist but its rural areas are still quite anticapitalist.



Yes we must stop the quote pyramids.

No I can think of no state which has gone from capitalism to socialism slowly, but I think your statement that "commies" get power through coups etc, is not paticularily relevent, I see the flaws in violent revolution, I would hope most others with views similar to me would too and the new system, which faciliates the minimum wage and other steps to equality, must learn from the mistakes of previous leftwing attempts to improve matters.

People may well decide things need changing by voting differently or non violently protesting. This could aid the gradual transfer which would distribute money more equally.

Also in the reply I gave before this one I missed a point I will now refer to. As you say Zimbabwe has the most capitalist economy in the area, it also has the economy which is worst in the area, proof the free market is not all you say.

I said Zimbawbwe is ONE of hte most capitalist economies in subsuharan Africa. The MOST capitalist one would probably be South Africa, which is also one of hte best economies there right now. And Zimbawbe is doing quite well compared to say, Angola, or Rwanda, or Liberia, or the DR of Congo (which is quite socialist by the way), or Somalia, etc....

Global Market said;

Russia's transition didn't work because it was done with no moderation. Then it stopped altogether. Such that, in 1992 Russia and China had similiar ratings in the Glossary of Economic Freedom, by 1994, Russia was labelled more capitalist than China, though both had become more capitalist. Eventually Russia's rating stabilized but every year China became slightly more capitalist. Now, China's rating is considerably more capitalist than Russia's and it is doing better. But still, the Russian economy is showing signs of doing better than in the lat eeighties. The transition from capitalism to socialism, done slowly, would cause a country to become a welfare state. When done slowly, it becomes a welfare state more slowly. But I can't think of any states that really transitioned from capitalism to socialism slowly because commies have a nasty tendency of always sezing powers in coups or revolutions.

The problems of transition are mainly related to per capita income, as Thomas Friedman notes, capitalism and socialism are like operating systems and society is the computer with per capita income being the processor speed. A good OS can increase processor speed, but the processor speed itself must speed up faster to support a better OS.

Which is why China's cities are capitalist but its rural areas are still quite anticapitalist.



Yes we must stop the quote pyramids.

No I can think of no state which has gone from capitalism to socialism slowly, but I think your statement that "commies" get power through coups etc, is not paticularily relevent, I see the flaws in violent revolution, I would hope most others with views similar to me would too and the new system, which faciliates the minimum wage and other steps to equality, must learn from the mistakes of previous leftwing attempts to improve matters.

People may well decide things need changing by voting differently or non violently protesting. This could aid the gradual transfer which would distribute money more equally.

Also in the reply I gave before this one I missed a point I will now refer to. As you say Zimbabwe has the most capitalist economy in the area, it also has the economy which is worst in the area, proof the free market is not all you say.

I said Zimbawbwe is ONE of hte most capitalist economies in subsuharan Africa. The MOST capitalist one would probably be South Africa, which is also one of hte best economies there right now. And Zimbawbe is doing quite well compared to say, Angola, or Rwanda, or Liberia, or the DR of Congo (which is quite socialist by the way), or Somalia, etc....

I wish I had left that last point, it was my fault, but that didn't really have anything to do with the minimum wage, which many in the list of countries, which have completely different internal conditions so can't be compared, have called out for. Though it is inevitable that countries in civil war will have knackered economies, I can't even believe we're mentioning it how can you compare countries at long term war and at, relative, peace?

It seems we can both pick out African countries and I can say "oh freemarket capitalism wasn't good for them" and you can say "Here we can see capitalism's succeess in bringing.........."

I know I started it,l but the discussion will die if we go on in this way.

I now ask you;ideologically,would you support a universal minimum wage for all (do not bear in mind, yet, the workings of this wage)?

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

For the same reason that we would not want/allow the UN or Governments to set prices for goods and services. The Free Market will increase wages. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down. (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).

Why are those who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.

If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws.

That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in the former Soviet Russia, the former Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means.

From www.capitalism.org (with very few minor changes)

If you're going to quote capitalism.org, at least be polite enough to attribute it as such :)

If you're going to quote capitalism.org, at least be polite enough to attribute it as such :)

Thank you for noticing...cut the last line off from my copy and paste via MS Word.

For the same reason that we would not want/allow the UN or Governments to set prices for goods and services. The Free Market will increase wages. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down. (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).


Competition between businesses pushes wages up, but collusion between businesses can force wages down. There is a reason that many nations have anti-trust laws, after all.

Is it going to do anything (for the smaller nations) except cause a temporary inflation hike, as businesses recoup lost profits from consumers - and make the export goods from those nations less attractive?

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

For the same reason that we would not want/allow the UN or Governments to set prices for goods and services. The Free Market will increase wages. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down. (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).

Why are those who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.

If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws.

That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in the former Soviet Russia, the former Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means.

From www.capitalism.org (with very few minor changes)

All except the final paragraph I have dealt with previously in the discussion. The final one however I will take time to look at;
It depends how much or how little the worker is paid as to wheter they are exploited, the employer can pay a fair wage or can pay an unfair one. The fact that the employer will always pay the least he can, as you have aknowledged, puts across the case for minimum wage perfectly.

The worker is not always free to leave their job, if the employer, as you rightly say can be the state, employs all in the area, this can happen with huge corporations and with their growth will surely be a problem in the future unless legislation is implemented.

You are right it is impossible for a worker to leave a job in a nation where all employment is nationalised, but where have I argued all people should be paid by the state? I have always argued that this minimum wage law was a protection for private employees as well as state employees. It is a law which enables capitalism to be run better and more fairly, as I have argued throughout the legislation on capitalism will not come from central government, it comes from an independent money and land distribution authority.

As for state employement, these workers would also be bound by minimum wage laws and an increase in persons employed by the state should take place with essential services and some, not all, food production being the responsiblity of individual governments to enable all the acess to things such as health, education, welfare and food.

For the same reason that we would not want/allow the UN or Governments to set prices for goods and services. The Free Market will increase wages. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down. (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).


Competition between businesses pushes wages up, but collusion between businesses can force wages down. There is a reason that many nations have anti-trust laws, after all.

But since business has to contend with natural market forces too, collusion actually becomes quite impractical over any meaningful amount of time. Look at Standard Oil, even when they became a trust they lowered the price of oil significantly and still increased wages.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

yes there is

Min Wage in P&G is 10.00 an hour.

Id rather have people making more money, than being miserable and trying to survive living paycheck to paycheck.

I try to make my people happy, if you give more. You get more in return.

Min Wage in P&G is 10.00 an hour.

Id rather have people making more money, than being miserable and trying to survive living paycheck to paycheck.

I try to make my people happy, if you give more. You get more in return.

What about hte people whom no one is willing to hire for that much? What do you do with them, huh?

And, Nixopolis, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COLLECTIVE GUILT." --Albert Speer.

Let's say the Minimum Wage in a certian industry is $5/hour.

Okay, now you double the wage to $10/hour. So now over twice as many people are unemployed (assuming 30% structural unemployment, this can be proven mathematically). For sake of argument, let's say exactly twice. So now you have to support those unemployed people. To do that you have to raise taxes. Say you raise 50% taxes to support them. So now, everyone is back down to $5/hour, only this time half the people aren't producing anything. So your people are producing half as much as they consume. Assuming that there is no foreign trade invovled, eventually your economy crashes and wages go down to $2.50.

Min Wage in P&G is 10.00 an hour.

Id rather have people making more money, than being miserable and trying to survive living paycheck to paycheck.

I try to make my people happy, if you give more. You get more in return.

Why not give everybody a million dollars? That should settle it, shouldn't it?

I'm going to explain to you what most of us learned in our Social Studies class when we were 12. Pay attention here: If you give everybody more money, the value of that money will go down. The only thing you are doing my setting a high minimum wage is devaluing the income of every person making more than minimum wage.

Every person who started out at minimum wage and earned small raises through the years gets an effective pay cut when you raise the minimum wage. The reason for this is simple: employers will not give a wage increase to employees to preserve the raises that they have already received. Since the minimum wage devalues the dollar, those who were making just above minimum wage are at rock bottom again.

Also, increasing the minimum wage is essentially increasing the cost of unskilled labor (FACT: no skilled labor position pays minimum wage). Since the employer has a budget for unskilled labor, an increase in the cost will render the employer unable to afford the cost of the workers. The result: more people have to be laid off. If you follow it through to its logical conclusion, minimum wage increases cause unemployment increases.

Tea-guy: You are horribly misinformed about what a free society consists of. Freedom is the absence of restrictions imposed by force, not the presence of the means by which to do what you want.

Tea-guy: You are horribly misinformed about what a free society consists of. Freedom is the absence of restrictions imposed by force, not the presence of the means by which to do what you want.

Or you are "horribly misinformed". How can you be free if you are bound by tools of oppression such as bad wages?
I said there were 2 sides to the argument, aknowledging your side also, which I completely disagree with, many have thought rules must be there to enable us to be free. Rousseau reflects this in the first sentance of his most famous work. I now must mention that I don't agree with everything Rousseau has ever said, I am opposed ton much of it, I say this because I know without it someone will read this and twist it into think I want the same society has he did and use it against me.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

I disagree that the minimum wage does not work on a practical level.

In the UK and across the EU the minimum wage law has been effective.

I have dealt with the practicalities and workings of a minimum wage law earlier in the debate and will not do so again,

however I wish to continue in the debate about the morality of the minimum wage, and am taking pleasure in the direction or this disscussion.

I disagree that the minimum wage does not work on a practical level.

In the UK and across the EU the minimum wage law has been effective.

I have dealt with the practicalities and workings of a minimum wage law earlier in the debate and will not do so again,

however I wish to continue in the debate about the morality of the minimum wage, and am taking pleasure in the direction or this disscussion.

Yep across the EU, the minimum wage has been very effective... at crashing economies and raising unemployment. Germany is Western Europe's highest minimum wage. It also has like 10-12% unemployment.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

When I said the most they could pay the worker, I assumed that the considerations of paying others and the employer also were taken into account, sorry if I misled.

What you say here is that empowerment can lead to creating society which is more free. Remember my aim is that society should be free for all in equal measures, or course not for those who have commited horrific crimes or other examples such as these. I used the phrase free society, not freedom, I thought free society reflected more what I desired as society is collective and all those in it should be free, freedom, to me, seems to be on more of a personal level, the ultimate aim is for all to be free to enjoy their life.

This is pointless Global. We have 15 pages of debate, and they just don't seem to listen. Perhaps their welfare-state governments should sign them all up for an ECONOMICS CLASS! Once the education for all crap passes anyways.

This is pointless Global. We have 15 pages of debate, and they just don't seem to listen. Perhaps their welfare-state governments should sign them all up for an ECONOMICS CLASS! Once the education for all crap passes anyways.

I am listening and am responding to criticisms, you may not agree with my answers, this is another matter. Please write things which are helpful and not just sarcastic and what you think to be funny.

The debate between myself and Global Market et al had been argued properly both of us doing the above, it has gone in many different directions and not taken the course you assume.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

When I said the most they could pay the worker, I assumed that the considerations of paying others and the employer also were taken into account, sorry if I misled.

What you say here is that empowerment can lead to creating society which is more free. Remember my aim is that society should be free for all in equal measures, or course not for those who have commited horrific crimes or other examples such as these. I used the phrase free society, not freedom, I thought free society reflected more what I desired as society is collective and all those in it should be free, freedom, to me, seems to be on more of a personal level, the ultimate aim is for all to be free to enjoy their life.

Freedom...can't...be....forced. Period.

Empowerment is what you get when you take a gun and overthrow the government. Like in Serbia.

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

When I said the most they could pay the worker, I assumed that the considerations of paying others and the employer also were taken into account, sorry if I misled.

What you say here is that empowerment can lead to creating society which is more free. Remember my aim is that society should be free for all in equal measures, or course not for those who have commited horrific crimes or other examples such as these. I used the phrase free society, not freedom, I thought free society reflected more what I desired as society is collective and all those in it should be free, freedom, to me, seems to be on more of a personal level, the ultimate aim is for all to be free to enjoy their life.

Freedom...can't...be....forced. Period.

Empowerment is what you get when you take a gun and overthrow the government. Like in Serbia.

I argue, you can legislate for freedom, for example;

We are free from the threat of murder, partly, because of legislation which states murder is illegal.

If murder were legal we would be less free in our avoidance of it.

From the debate I sense you hold private property with high regard, you also aknowledge that this, as it should be, is protected from theft by law. Here a law enable you to have the freedom to enjoy your private property.

In a country torn by civil war people are not free,
often countries of this nature are lawless,

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

When I said the most they could pay the worker, I assumed that the considerations of paying others and the employer also were taken into account, sorry if I misled.

What you say here is that empowerment can lead to creating society which is more free. Remember my aim is that society should be free for all in equal measures, or course not for those who have commited horrific crimes or other examples such as these. I used the phrase free society, not freedom, I thought free society reflected more what I desired as society is collective and all those in it should be free, freedom, to me, seems to be on more of a personal level, the ultimate aim is for all to be free to enjoy their life.

Freedom...can't...be....forced. Period.

Empowerment is what you get when you take a gun and overthrow the government. Like in Serbia.

I argue, you can legislate for freedom, for example;

We are free from the threat of murder, partly, because of legislation which states murder is illegal.

If murder were legal we would be less free in our avoidance of it.

From the debate I sense you hold private property with high regard, you also aknowledge that this, as it should be, is protected from theft by law. Here a law enable you to have the freedom to enjoy your private property.

In a country torn by civil war people are not free,
often countries of this nature are lawless,

No I would not support a universal minimum wage

The next question may seem simple;

why would you not support a universal minimum wage?

Because it is morally wrong (i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your money)

And more importantly, it is highly impractical (I don't want to go over the proof for this again....)

No I don't want the "proof" for this again, we will both always disagree on the practicalities of a minimum wage, however now I must explain to you why I think you are wrong in saying a minimum wage law is "morally wrong".

You say you may do what you like with your own money, this I accept is true, with one clause, in doing so you must not harm or impoverish others through unfair distribution or other oppressive means, to illustrate this point I will use an analogy of a knife, you may do what you will with a knife, cutting potatoes, whittling sticks etc, but you may not stab someone with this knife, so, like money, a knife should only be used positively, I believe it would be possitive if across the world there were greater equality in pay, thus fighting poverty and it's syptoms.

I think that we are both after the same thing in this arguement and that is free society, I believe in the implementation of a law to bring about free society, the minimum wage law so all can live comfortably and afford greater leisure time, you on the other hand think free society will exist without taking any measures to enable it to do so and overall you say the freedom of the capitalist should be greater than that of the worker, who doesn't have the same amount of money as the capitalist to spend freely. I say, after the reforms in wage, that the worker and the employer are equal in their freedoms and similarily paid.

When you stab someone with a knife, you are actively violating that person's right to life. However, if you refuse to give someone your money, you are not violating any of their rights. A person does not have the right to someone else's property.

If a poor person starves, it isn't because you didn't give him money; it's because he didn't earn it. At best, it's because 6 billion other people didn't give him money. And tehre is no such thing as collective guilt.

If you employ that person you speak of you have a duty to pay him the minimum wage, or ideally the most money you possibly can. If you don't pay someone, you DO violate their rights, their labour rights, which are decreed by the UN, it is these sort of labour rights that I believe need strengthening. Property we now get to what is someones property, money which should taken from you as a tax to pay others minimum wage is not your property, the rest of that money however is your property and no, people do not have a right to this.

If there is no way of the person, you then state, earning money, or not earning enough to live off, then it is not their fault. The minimum wage law gives them the chance to get, or enough, money and go poor or hungry.

McDonald's could in theory pay a worker $1 million. That wouldn't be very practical though. The equilibrium wage is the wage that best balances the interests of employer and worker and thus should be followed.

You are mixing 'freedom' and 'empowerment'. Freedom is the absence of regulations based on force and coercion as Ithuania said. THe means to get what you want is empowerment. And freedom and empowerment are very different. Empowerment, anyone can grab a gun and have empowerment, but freedom must be mutually agreed to.

When I said the most they could pay the worker, I assumed that the considerations of paying others and the employer also were taken into account, sorry if I misled.

What you say here is that empowerment can lead to creating society which is more free. Remember my aim is that society should be free for all in equal measures, or course not for those who have commited horrific crimes or other examples such as these. I used the phrase free society, not freedom, I thought free society reflected more what I desired as society is collective and all those in it should be free, freedom, to me, seems to be on more of a personal level, the ultimate aim is for all to be free to enjoy their life.

Freedom...can't...be....forced. Period.

Empowerment is what you get when you take a gun and overthrow the government. Like in Serbia.

I argue that you can and government's do legislate for freedom, for example;

We are free from the threat of murder, partly, because of legislation which states murder is illegal.

If murder were legal we would be less free in our avoidance of it.

From the debate I sense you hold private property with high regard, you also aknowledge that this, as it should be, is protected from theft by law. Here a law enable you to have the freedom to enjoy your private property.

In a country torn by civil war people are not free,
often countries of this nature are lawless,

Sorry I posted twice an accident

A law against theft prevents other people from violating your property rights. The minimum wage is the thing violating your property rights.

Laws should be based on JS Mill's Harms Principle, which basically says you can do whatever you want unless there is a harm to somebody else. [Addedendum for modern society: a clear, provable, and quantitative harm, i.e. if someone swears at you and you are emotionally scarred, that is not a harm, swearing should still be legal]. This allows for the maximum amount of freedom in a society.

This discussion, though it's interesting on its merits (pros and cons of the minimum wage) has no place being debated and voted on in the UN as a resolution. Like the last few proposals that have been passed, this one is provincial in its thinking; it's based on the limiting viewpoint that what is familiar is what is valuable, and, like the last few proposals that have passed, is extremely western in its approach. What of those nations that do not employ a system in which workers expect payment for their labor? I'll renew my objection to this type of UN Proposal based on the fact that it is, by definition, arrogant and exclusionary, and will result only in driving nations different in their approach to governing away from the UN, making us less representative of the world and therefore less effective as a governing body. More points of order:

1. Not all nations place a value on the individual in contrast to the collective
2. Any proposal that assumes as part of its argument's foundation that all nations do or should place a value on the individual as separate from the collective should be quickly rejected; this type of debate is valuable but when adopted as a resolution does nothing but make the UN weaker by forcing member nations to become more similar.

Please change your vote to No and consider adopting the above rules as part of an acid test for future UN resolutions.

Idumean's Know They're Cool 8)

This discussion, though it's interesting on its merits (pros and cons of the minimum wage) has no place being debated and voted on in the UN as a resolution. Like the last few proposals that have been passed, this one is provincial in its thinking; it's based on the limiting viewpoint that what is familiar is what is valuable, and, like the last few proposals that have passed, is extremely western in its approach. What of those nations that do not employ a system in which workers expect payment for their labor? I'll renew my objection to this type of UN Proposal based on the fact that it is, by definition, arrogant and exclusionary, and will result only in driving nations different in their approach to governing away from the UN, making us less representative of the world and therefore less effective as a governing body. More points of order:

1. Not all nations place a value on the individual in contrast to the collective
2. Any proposal that assumes as part of its argument's foundation that all nations do or should place a value on the individual as separate from the collective should be quickly rejected; this type of debate is valuable but when adopted as a resolution does nothing but make the UN weaker by forcing member nations to become more similar.

Please change your vote to No and consider adopting the above rules as part of an acid test for future UN resolutions.

Idumean's Know They're Cool 8)

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.[/quote]

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage? If I'm not mistaken, the proposed resolution assumes that wages are paid. If wages are paid then individuals are receiving them. If individuals are receiving wages then in all likelihood those wages are used for subsistence on some level. The foundational assumption of this resolution is that all member nations utilize a system in which wages are paid to individuals. My argument is that this assumption is invalid and therefore the resolution should be voted down.

8)

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage? If I'm not mistaken, the proposed resolution assumes that wages are paid. If wages are paid then individuals are receiving them. If individuals are receiving wages then in all likelihood those wages are used for subsistence on some level. The foundational assumption of this resolution is that all member nations utilize a system in which wages are paid to individuals. My argument is that this assumption is invalid and therefore the resolution should be voted down.

8)[/quote]

To reject the concept of an individual, by your own logic, is to say that life doesn't exist... because life belongs to individuals.

I am listening and am responding to criticisms, you may not agree with my answers, this is another matter. Please write things which are helpful and not just sarcastic and what you think to be funny.

It is not that I do not agree with your answers, it is that you are responding with idealistic statements, and not with evidence. Propose a logical argument, and I may cut out the sarcasm. I got sick of debating the minimum wage ages ago with Wolomy. So unless you have something new to say, I will continue to consider this entire debate pointless.

The concept of the individual is a western one. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with life. It's a conceptual possibility that we're all part of one single organism, and our "individuality" is illusionary. We don't necessarily believe this is true, but we make it a matter of policy to make room for the possiblity that it is true. Not all nations agree that the individual should be treated as separate from the collective - this is a reality. Because it's a reality, the UN has to make room for it as a concept when making policy decisions. If it doesn't, then it is excluding that part of the world's reality and undermining the purpose of its own existence.

8)

The concept of the individual is a western one. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with life. It's a conceptual possibility that we're all part of one single organism, and our "individuality" is illusionary. We don't necessarily believe this is true, but we make it a matter of policy to make room for the possiblity that it is true. Not all nations agree that the individual should be treated as separate from the collective - this is a reality. Because it's a reality, the UN has to make room for it as a concept when making policy decisions. If it doesn't, then it is excluding that part of the world's reality and undermining the purpose of its own existence.

8)

No, the concept of the individual isn't a Western one. There are well-founded individualist traditions in much of the Orient, especailly Japan. Taoism and Buddhism likewise are individualistic religions, stressing personal salvation (or enlightenment) over group salvation.

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage?
8)[/quote]

The only things in life that are certain are "death and taxes"

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage?
8)

The only things in life that are certain are "death and taxes"[/quote]

Not in my country :lol:

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage?
8)

The only things in life that are certain are "death and taxes"

Not in my country :lol:[/quote]

Have you achieve immortality (or immorality)?

[quote="The Global Market

Okay, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

There is no noun form of 'death' in Chinese, that doesn't mean Chinese culture doesn't acknowledge that death exists.

:!: :?: :!: :?: What does it have to do with the minimum wage?
8)

The only things in life that are certain are "death and taxes"

Not in my country :lol:

Have you achieve immortality (or immorality)?[/quote]

No but we've achieved zero taxation.

No but we've achieved zero taxation.

That cannot be good. I smell EVIL. Evil things are afoot....

No, the concept of the individual isn't a Western one. There are well-founded individualist traditions in much of the Orient, especailly Japan. Taoism and Buddhism likewise are individualistic religions, stressing personal salvation (or enlightenment) over group salvation.

Okay, the concept doesn't belong to the West. But I think you are missing the point. At the risk of repeating ourselves we'll take another run at it:

Fact: there are countries that do not embrace the concept

Point: because of aforementioned fact, UN should not enact resolutions that do embrace the concept

Agree? Disagree? Either is fine as long as the discussion is about the argument we're making, not things peripheral to it.

8)

No, the concept of the individual isn't a Western one. There are well-founded individualist traditions in much of the Orient, especailly Japan. Taoism and Buddhism likewise are individualistic religions, stressing personal salvation (or enlightenment) over group salvation.

Okay, the concept doesn't belong to the West. But I think you are missing the point. At the risk of repeating ourselves we'll take another run at it:

Fact: there are countries that do not embrace the concept

Point: because of aforementioned fact, UN should not enact resolutions that do embrace the concept

Agree? Disagree? Either is fine as long as the discussion is about the argument we're making, not things peripheral to it.

8)

There are countries who think that perpetual war is good, that doesn't mean the UN shouldn't help promote pecae...

There are countries who think that perpetual war is good, that doesn't mean the UN shouldn't help promote pecae...

Again, though, it's hardly the same thing. We're advocating the acceptance of approaches to the relationship between individual and state that don't reflect our own. A nation that chooses a different approach to this relationship is hardly threatening its neighbors. However, if a world governing body continually passes resolutions that negatively impact the ability of those nations (and the people within them) to live within the context such alternate relationships, then the governing body is the aggressor. That's us. All we'll end up doing is chasing away the nations we're alienating.

There are countries who think that perpetual war is good, that doesn't mean the UN shouldn't help promote peace...

Peace is unnatural. Just think about it: war in the name of peace? It is a nobel cause.

No matter how you look at it, people will fight for what they belive.

Again, though, it's hardly the same thing.

The problem is that it can be. It seems that this is not merely about minimum wage. It has become more of the greater "state rights versus government rights" argument.

It's too easy to make wild arguments and exampes but:

Let's just say I pay my military the same whether they are deployed or not. If I felt my national sovernty or identity were threatened, I may choose to fight. The minimum wage law would most likely raise minimum wage or set one higher than it currently is. I'll use a good round number. If I give a 1 unit currency (whatever your currency is) raise, it may be cheaper to deploy my military and fight than to pay the increase or lobby the government to do it.

I think the larger issue at play here is that the people in favor of a minimum wage believe that any person who works hard at a full-time job should not starve/die from a lack of income while those opposed to a mniimum wage believe that unimpeded market forces will naturally prevent most instances of this occuring, or else that it is not in the interest of a nation's economy to prevent such occurances. Thus, the debate is really one of Classical vs. Keynesian economic theories.

There are countries who think that perpetual war is good, that doesn't mean the UN shouldn't help promote pecae...

Again, though, it's hardly the same thing. We're advocating the acceptance of approaches to the relationship between individual and state that don't reflect our own. A nation that chooses a different approach to this relationship is hardly threatening its neighbors. However, if a world governing body continually passes resolutions that negatively impact the ability of those nations (and the people within them) to live within the context such alternate relationships, then the governing body is the aggressor. That's us. All we'll end up doing is chasing away the nations we're alienating.

What about passing resolutions that threaten my country's relationship between individual and state?

Not only should there be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage limit as well.

A law against theft prevents other people from violating your property rights. The minimum wage is the thing violating your property rights.

Laws should be based on JS Mill's Harms Principle, which basically says you can do whatever you want unless there is a harm to somebody else. [Addedendum for modern society: a clear, provable, and quantitative harm, i.e. if someone swears at you and you are emotionally scarred, that is not a harm, swearing should still be legal]. This allows for the maximum amount of freedom in a society.

My argument would be that everyone deserves to have a decent proportion of money and wealth to be their own private property, therefore I would say a minimum wage distributes property fairly, after distribution it becomes private property.

Not only should there be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage limit as well.

Good idea, increase unemployment AND lower wages at the same time.

A law against theft prevents other people from violating your property rights. The minimum wage is the thing violating your property rights.

Laws should be based on JS Mill's Harms Principle, which basically says you can do whatever you want unless there is a harm to somebody else. [Addedendum for modern society: a clear, provable, and quantitative harm, i.e. if someone swears at you and you are emotionally scarred, that is not a harm, swearing should still be legal]. This allows for the maximum amount of freedom in a society.

My argument would be that everyone deserves to have a decent proportion of money and wealth to be their own private property, therefore I would say a minimum wage distributes property fairly, after distribution it becomes private property.

In a free economy, 'fair' is properly determined by the Market Equilibrium. The minimum wage is unfair. While I'm sure you have good intentions, teh minimum wage is simply unfair and causes a lot more harms (unemployment, black markets) than any good it could cause.

Here's why a maximum wage wouldn't work: A wage is a price. A maximum wage is a price ceiling. It was never actually tried, but a price ceiling was tried on rent in New York City. You ended up with a huge, huge black market, with people doing things like renting you the house then renting you the bathroom key (which in a sense they are already doing, most CEOs have very little in actual pay but lots of corporate gifts). This absolutely destroyed the value of New York property and ended in looting and all sorts of freelance crime, so that eventually the city had to get rid of most of its regulations on rent prices.

A law against theft prevents other people from violating your property rights. The minimum wage is the thing violating your property rights.

Laws should be based on JS Mill's Harms Principle, which basically says you can do whatever you want unless there is a harm to somebody else. [Addedendum for modern society: a clear, provable, and quantitative harm, i.e. if someone swears at you and you are emotionally scarred, that is not a harm, swearing should still be legal]. This allows for the maximum amount of freedom in a society.

My argument would be that everyone deserves to have a decent proportion of money and wealth to be their own private property, therefore I would say a minimum wage distributes property fairly, after distribution it becomes private property.

In a free economy, 'fair' is properly determined by the Market Equilibrium. The minimum wage is unfair. While I'm sure you have good intentions, teh minimum wage is simply unfair and causes a lot more harms (unemployment, black markets) than any good it could cause.

Here's why a maximum wage wouldn't work: A wage is a price. A maximum wage is a price ceiling. It was never actually tried, but a price ceiling was tried on rent in New York City. You ended up with a huge, huge black market, with people doing things like renting you the house then renting you the bathroom key (which in a sense they are already doing, most CEOs have very little in actual pay but lots of corporate gifts). This absolutely destroyed the value of New York property and ended in looting and all sorts of freelance crime, so that eventually the city had to get rid of most of its regulations on rent prices.

Your objection to the minimum wage, on a moral level, states that all have had equal chances, they have all had the chance to become rich capitalists.

However this is not true to the real world, not everyone has had equal chances. The man from a rich capitalist family with family advice will be able to achieve more material wealth in capitalist society, in most situations, than a someone who has known only poverty and has not had the chances of schooling, this is undeniable as the backgrounds of employers and workers would show if data were available.

The minimum wage serves to counter these inequalities of chances available.

A law against theft prevents other people from violating your property rights. The minimum wage is the thing violating your property rights.

Laws should be based on JS Mill's Harms Principle, which basically says you can do whatever you want unless there is a harm to somebody else. [Addedendum for modern society: a clear, provable, and quantitative harm, i.e. if someone swears at you and you are emotionally scarred, that is not a harm, swearing should still be legal]. This allows for the maximum amount of freedom in a society.

My argument would be that everyone deserves to have a decent proportion of money and wealth to be their own private property, therefore I would say a minimum wage distributes property fairly, after distribution it becomes private property.

In a free economy, 'fair' is properly determined by the Market Equilibrium. The minimum wage is unfair. While I'm sure you have good intentions, teh minimum wage is simply unfair and causes a lot more harms (unemployment, black markets) than any good it could cause.

Here's why a maximum wage wouldn't work: A wage is a price. A maximum wage is a price ceiling. It was never actually tried, but a price ceiling was tried on rent in New York City. You ended up with a huge, huge black market, with people doing things like renting you the house then renting you the bathroom key (which in a sense they are already doing, most CEOs have very little in actual pay but lots of corporate gifts). This absolutely destroyed the value of New York property and ended in looting and all sorts of freelance crime, so that eventually the city had to get rid of most of its regulations on rent prices.

Your objection to the minimum wage, on a moral level, states that all have had equal chances, they have all had the chance to become rich capitalists.

However this is not true to the real world, not everyone has had equal chances. The man from a rich capitalist family with family advice will be able to achieve more material wealth in capitalist society, in most situations, than a someone who has known only poverty and has not had the chances of schooling, this is undeniable as the backgrounds of employers and workers would show if data were available.

The minimum wage serves to counter these inequalities of chances available.

Not everyone has an equal footing; but everyone has some sort of a footing. In the real world, that man from a rich capitalist family might be a lazy sob who loses all of his family's money and that poor person from poverty with no schooling might spend his weekends in the public library and end up like Andrew Carnegie. Even under the Emperors, Chinese government was very meritocratic compared to say, feudalism. There's a famous story in China; it is about two families. In one generation one would be rich and the other would be poor. Then, it would reverse the next generation and keep reversing and keep reversing perpetually.

What about passing resolutions that threaten my country's relationship between individual and state?

If we understand your point, then we're 100% opposed to such resolutions. Your country has an absolute right to define this relationship. This relationship is probably the single most important factor in determining a nation's identity - it's a huge mistake to try to legislate it.

8)

Not only should there be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage limit as well.

Good idea, increase unemployment AND lower wages at the same time.
Ah yes, because ensuring that nurses, firefighters and the like are not underpaid and leaving their respective professions, as opposed to a man earning several million for kicking a ball around a field one day a week for only half the year is ultimately an absolutely insane idea. Pardon me for having this desire to prioritise according to common sense, I completely forgot that as long as David Beckam has a mansion to live in, the world is dead to rights.

Not only should there be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage limit as well.

Good idea, increase unemployment AND lower wages at the same time.
Ah yes, because ensuring that nurses, firefighters and the like are not underpaid and leaving their respective professions, as opposed to a man earning several million for kicking a ball around a field one day a week for only half the year is ultimately an absolutely insane idea. Pardon me for having this desire to prioritise according to common sense, I completely forgot that as long as David Beckam has a mansion to live in, the world is dead to rights.

You've also forgotten that people like sports and are thus willing to pay athletes so much. You've also forgotten what happened in NYC when they tried it on rent. You've abandoned all sound economic theory.

Fact: Nurses, Firefighters, etc don't make the minimum wage.
Fact: Only unskilled laborers, who produce less than minimum wage, and even then just a minority of them, make teh minimum wage.

Guess what happens when a worker produces $4 worth of stuff every hour, but it costs $5.15/hour to hire him. That's right, he's out of a job!

Not only should there be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage limit as well.

Good idea, increase unemployment AND lower wages at the same time.
Ah yes, because ensuring that nurses, firefighters and the like are not underpaid and leaving their respective professions, as opposed to a man earning several million for kicking a ball around a field one day a week for only half the year is ultimately an absolutely insane idea. Pardon me for having this desire to prioritise according to common sense, I completely forgot that as long as David Beckam has a mansion to live in, the world is dead to rights.

If a man that kicks a ball around a field once per week earns 10 million per year, it is because he brings in 40 million per year to his employer. That employer in making an investment that he expects to get returned to him.

Nurses, firefighters, and teachers don't make much because they don't bring in much money for their employers. Period.

Your "prioritizing" sounds good, but it doesn't work. You would see everyone paid the same, whether they actually make money for their employers or not.

Get this straight: everyone is not equal! Some people aren't willing to prepare for the future or to educate themselves beyond where they are. They don't deserve any improvements in their quality of life that they aren't willing to work for. People deserve whatever the market is willing to pay them, nothing more and nothing less. If they aren't happy, it's time to look into another career. Those who strive for excellence and constant improvement all of their lives will be successful. Those who don't deserve whatever they get.

Developed nations who have well-supported high minimum wages are more prosperous, probably because people have more to spend on investments and consumer goods.Well paid workers buy goods made by other well paid workers.

If a man that kicks a ball around a field once per week earns 10 million per year, it is because he brings in 40 million per year to his employer. That employer in making an investment that he expects to get returned to him.

Nurses, firefighters, and teachers don't make much because they don't bring in much money for their employers. Period.

Your "prioritizing" sounds good, but it doesn't work. You would see everyone paid the same, whether they actually make money for their employers or not.



Unfortunately, there are occupations that inherently do NOT generate income for their employers yet must be done anyway. Take public transportation for example. Not one subway system in the entire USA runs at a profit without government subsidies. This is because if market forces were allowed to define the price of a subway ticket, then demand would fall to the point where providing the service would be pointless. The majority of subway riders choose to ride the subway because they do NOT own automobiles.

The point is that some services need to be provided whether they bring money or not. Would you have the police department be privately funded, such that the police in impoverished neighborhoods would have too little funding to supress crime in their areas? Such a practice would only lead to an increase in crime in low-income areas.

Unfortunately, there are occupations that inherently do NOT generate income for their employers yet must be done anyway. Take public transportation for example. Not one subway system in the entire USA runs at a profit without government subsidies. This is because if market forces were allowed to define the price of a subway ticket, then demand would fall to the point where providing the service would be pointless. The majority of subway riders choose to ride the subway because they do NOT own automobiles.

The point is that some services need to be provided whether they bring money or not. Would you have the police department be privately funded, such that the police in impoverished neighborhoods would have too little funding to supress crime in their areas? Such a practice would only lead to an increase in crime in low-income areas.

Look at the point that I was contesting. I'm not saying that there aren't any jobs that need to be funded by the government. My point was that it is not an injustice that a sports star makes more money than a nurse, even if the nurse works longer hours. The sports star is worth what his employer is willing to pay him. That's all.

However, I do believe that a lot of services would be more efficient if they were privatized. Like the DMV. Consider the amount of time that is wasted there due to poor, slow service. Privatize the processing of driver's licenses production, and watch productivity and efficiency sky-rocket.

Another service that could be privatized is the education system's administration. A lot of people will probably disagree with me on this one, but they should look at the results of the public school systems that have turned their administrations over to the Edison company (Stock symbol EDSN). They have done great!

Minimum wages are good and stuff

Amoral scumbag...

Much as I am in favor of not only a minimum wage, but a living minimum wage, I can't support this proposal. It's not a UN issue--it's an issue that should be brought up in individual trade negotiations between sovereign states. Not every country is on an equal financial footing, and to require a minimum wage for everyone would ut unnecessary hardships on some countries while harming workers in other countries. Set up minimums in your trade negotiations and only deal with countries that recognize worker's rights if it's important to you as an RPer, but keep it out of the UN.

The Worker's State of Calapooya Maintains that the minimum wage is irrelevant to our stage of economic development. Our workers are firmly in control of the means of production and in such a situation the notion of wage labor is irrelevant. In fact the wage system is abolished by our Constitution. Workers are paid a bonus for productivity and an additional foreign trade bonus if warranted. All physical and psychological needs are provided to our citizens and the bonus system leaves plenty for discretionary spending. Keep your antiquated methods for controlling the working class for yourselves. The United Socialist States of Calapooya reject the capitalist profit/Loss system and seek to build a system of free and open exchange between nations. There is enough for everyone.
Abolish the wage system now! Capitalism cannot be reformed!

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Piss off. There is nothing amoral about the opposing point of view. Does the fact that you have an idea mean that you are automatically allowed to enslave others to do your bidding in order to produce your goods and market them? Or is it just possible that regardless of how good your idea is, you still need others to help you produce goods or services and that those people deserve remuneration--whatever the market will bear and whatever a collective group of workers can negotiate for. Wealth is not soloey generated by ideas--it's generated by the combination of ideas and the ability to put those ideas into action--or did you think that material goods just magically appear out of thin air?

Catholic wholly and utterly supports the proposal for the establishment of a minimum wage, allowing the poorest of society to get by on just enough.

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Piss off. There is nothing amoral about the opposing point of view. Does the fact that you have an idea mean that you are automatically allowed to enslave others to do your bidding in order to produce your goods and market them? Or is it just possible that regardless of how good your idea is, you still need others to help you produce goods or services and that those people deserve remuneration--whatever the market will bear and whatever a collective group of workers can negotiate for. Wealth is not soloey generated by ideas--it's generated by the combination of ideas and the ability to put those ideas into action--or did you think that material goods just magically appear out of thin air?

Well said. :)

What is wrong with being amoral?

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Piss off. There is nothing amoral about the opposing point of view.
Yes, there is--the fact that it desires slavery.
Does the fact that you have an idea mean that you are automatically allowed to enslave others to do your bidding in order to produce your goods and market them?
Of course not--they work for me of their own free will, because they value what I offer them more than they value the time and energy spent working.
Or is it just possible that regardless of how good your idea is, you still need others to help you produce goods or services and that those people deserve remuneration--whatever the market will bear and whatever a collective group of workers can negotiate for.
That doesn't mean government should get involved and restrict the agreements my employees and I may come to.

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Piss off. There is nothing amoral about the opposing point of view.
Yes, there is--the fact that it desires slavery.

Care to explain that--I mean with more than one-liners that are meant to do nothing more than provoke anger and resentment? After all, I brought up some salient points about the problems inherent in the point of view you espouse--the least you can do is reply with a bit more than "people who believe in a minimum wage and worker protections are scumbags."

Does the fact that you have an idea mean that you are automatically allowed to enslave others to do your bidding in order to produce your goods and market them?

Of course not--they work for me of their own free will, because they value what I offer them more than they value the time and energy spent working.

You know, that sounds pretty, but in the real world, it's a load of crap. Fact is, without government protections for workers--things like OSHA, the minimum wage and the like, manufacturers have shown a predeliction to treat the workers in their plants like nothing more than interchangeable parts.
And since the world has largely moved on from being an agrarian and self-sufficient society, most humans have neither the opportunity nor the wherewithal to make it without buying into the capitalist system or some version thereof. There is nowhere else for them to go in order to provide for their families or even for themselves. To act as though individuals have this magical choice between working or not working is naive in the extreme--only those born to wealth have that option. But under your system, the option would lay somewhere between starving after working 14 hours a day or starving after not working 14 hours a day--the end result is the same. Yeah, that's a hell of a choice all right.

Or is it just possible that regardless of how good your idea is, you still need others to help you produce goods or services and that those people deserve remuneration--whatever the market will bear and whatever a collective group of workers can negotiate for.

That doesn't mean government should get involved and restrict the agreements my employees and I may come to.

If you read my entire first post on this subject, you'll notice I'm not supporting the proposal to enforce an international minimum wage, but rather that individual nations, through the use of bilateral trade agreements should work to improve worker's rights. But one of my government's responsibilities--in character here--is to make provision for the general welfare of all citizens,and one way it does that is by encouraging labor unionization and sharply regulating businesses and requiring mandatory minimums as regards safety and pay. If you want to call that amoral, I suppose you're within your rights, but you're still wrong. Calling a chicken a fish all day doesn't make it any less a chicken after all.

Yet another amoral scumbag who fails to recognize that the origin of all wealth is the brain of the inventor/developer/businessman.

Piss off. There is nothing amoral about the opposing point of view.
Yes, there is--the fact that it desires slavery.

Care to explain that--I mean with more than one-liners that are meant to do nothing more than provoke anger and resentment? After all, I brought up some salient points about the problems inherent in the point of view you espouse--the least you can do is reply with a bit more than "people who believe in a minimum wage and worker protections are scumbags."
Gladly.

Does the fact that you have an idea mean that you are automatically allowed to enslave others to do your bidding in order to produce your goods and market them?

Of course not--they work for me of their own free will, because they value what I offer them more than they value the time and energy spent working.

You know, that sounds pretty, but in the real world, it's a load of crap. Fact is, without government protections for workers--things like OSHA, the minimum wage and the like, manufacturers have shown a predeliction to treat the workers in their plants like nothing more than interchangeable parts.
And since the world has largely moved on from being an agrarian and self-sufficient society, most humans have neither the opportunity nor the wherewithal to make it without buying into the capitalist system or some version thereof. There is nowhere else for them to go in order to provide for their families or even for themselves. To act as though individuals have this magical choice between working or not working is naive in the extreme--only those born to wealth have that option. But under your system, the option would lay somewhere between starving after working 14 hours a day or starving after not working 14 hours a day--the end result is the same. Yeah, that's a hell of a choice all right.
So are you saying that employees are kept at their jobs at gunpoint? Because if they aren't, then they're free to go at any time. Period. And as long as that's true, then any proposal to regulate what agreements employers and employees are allowed to come to is fundamentally evil and amoral. Because no one has a right to a safe , well-paying job. If someone wants to provide you with a job, great, but you have to take it on the terms on which it is offered or not at all--because it's the employer's job to offer or not as he sees fit, and it's the employer's property to allow you on or not as he sees fit, etc.

So are you saying that employees are kept at their jobs at gunpoint? Because if they aren't, then they're free to go at any time. Period. And as long as that's true, then any proposal to regulate what agreements employers and employees are allowed to come to is fundamentally evil and amoral. Because no one has a right to a safe , well-paying job. If someone wants to provide you with a job, great, but you have to take it on the terms on which it is offered or not at all--because it's the employer's job to offer or not as he sees fit, and it's the employer's property to allow you on or not as he sees fit, etc.

At gunpoint? No. But are they really free if they need a job in order to care for themselves and there's nowhere else to get one? Because that's the situation you had in the US back at the turn of the 20th century--workers had no rights and management held all the cards. It was only with the rise of collective bargaining that workers managed to get conditions to change at all, and the captains of industry fought that as long and as hard as they could--still do as a matter of fact.

So are you saying that workers should have no say other than the ability to vote with their feet? Are you saying that employers should be able to allow dangerous working conditions because the workers make the choice to be there? Are you saying that employers have no responsibility to those they employ? If you are, then that's worse than slavery--at elast slave owners had to protect their investment by offering some form of protections.

The reason worker quality of life has improved in the last 100 years is the same reason bourgeoisie quality of life has improved in the last 100 years... TECHNOLOGY. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see nothing wrong with unions or collective bargaining. Of course, since governments have the ability to use PHYSICAL FORCE to impose its will, it should stay out of it. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEITHER SIDE WITH UNIONS NOR BUSINESS. They should bargain by themselves.

So are you saying that employees are kept at their jobs at gunpoint? Because if they aren't, then they're free to go at any time. Period. And as long as that's true, then any proposal to regulate what agreements employers and employees are allowed to come to is fundamentally evil and amoral. Because no one has a right to a safe , well-paying job. If someone wants to provide you with a job, great, but you have to take it on the terms on which it is offered or not at all--because it's the employer's job to offer or not as he sees fit, and it's the employer's property to allow you on or not as he sees fit, etc.

At gunpoint? No. But are they really free if they need a job in order to care for themselves and there's nowhere else to get one? Because that's the situation you had in the US back at the turn of the 20th century--workers had no rights and management held all the cards. It was only with the rise of collective bargaining that workers managed to get conditions to change at all, and the captains of industry fought that as long and as hard as they could--still do as a matter of fact.

So are you saying that workers should have no say other than the ability to vote with their feet? Are you saying that employers should be able to allow dangerous working conditions because the workers make the choice to be there? Are you saying that employers have no responsibility to those they employ?
Exactly--at least, they have no obligation to do so. It may not be good business sense, but they're free to have whatever conditions they wish as terms of employment (as long as no one else is harmed without his consent, of course). You see, the business owner owns the business and pays the employee's wages. Therefore, the employee must accept the employer's terms or none at all. If he wants to try and bargain, fine. But to REQUIRE BY LAW that the employer make certain concessions is pure evil.
If you are, then that's worse than slavery--at elast slave owners had to protect their investment by offering some form of protections.
They didn't HAVE to, it just made good business sense to. And the fact remains that the slave would be harmed if he left. That is what made slavery evil.

Our economic advisor, @ûmoksami, has this to say:

"...Minimum wage is one of the greatest things that exists for poor people. We completely support......this proposal..."

Then your economic advisor is a subhuman cretin who deserves to burn alive with the likes of Hitler, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Zedong, Guevara, Chomsky, Marx, Roosevelt, Johnson, and other similar amoral scumbags.

I suppose letting the poor starve is a better choice, ithuania.

If the only way to prevent that starvation is to impose immoral restrictions on the types of agreements individuals may enter into, then yes.

Of course, a minimum wage is not the only way to prevent starvation. But if it were, then too bad for the poor. No one has a right to a living through violating the rights of other individuals--including the right to enter into agreements free from outside coercion and force.

stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstup idstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidst upidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstup idstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidst upidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstup idstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidst upidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupidstupidstupidstupid :D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow:

Are we to be allowed to set our own minimum or will one be imposed by the UN?
That might be difficult to enact fairly since economic conditions vary so greaatly from nation to nation.
What is a subsistance wage in one state may be a king's ransom in another.
We do not disagree with the main idea, we in fact do have a minimum wage here. But the implementation msy be iffy.

can Bradwurst or a mod please edit his/her post so that the thread is not messed up and easier to read? thank you.

Then your economic advisor is a subhuman cretin who deserves to burn alive with the likes of Hitler, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Zedong, Guevara, Chomsky, Marx, Roosevelt, Johnson, and other similar amoral scumbags.

There is a big difference between amoral and immoral...

What is wrong with being amoral?