NEWS: Bush Gives Minimum Wage Hike the Nod

Alright, be prepared for three ghosts tomorrow night.

Ok, last time I checked, better is never worse. When judging a situation overall, you weigh the pros and the cons together to decide if the new option is better or worse.

My definition of better is as the whole of the situation. Not everything weighs the same and different people have different opinions of which of any situation is more tolerable.

Personally, I can put up with a crappy boss in exchange for set work hours and good pay. Other people would prefer the good boss with a swing shift schedule. There are a million variables to make the overall judgment on.

There is nothing prejudice in saying that if someone has the chance to improve the situation and yet still chooses to do nothing, that they don't deserve a hike.

First you acknowledge the fact that some people consider a good boss with a bad schedule (in your opinion) which is different from what you consider to be a good working environment.

Then, you disallow their right to decide what is best for them by dictating what should constitute a better working environment based on what YOU deem better. So if someone doesn't want YOUR chosen work environment, then they aren't deserving of at least minimum wage?

Seriously, the ol' DoucheBag-O-Meter is red lining.

There are two issues here. One is the idea that someone has to "deserve" something, which sets up an subjective standard that is based on a whole littany of problematic criteria. According to your criteria, those who chose to remain in their current jobs - despite opportunities to advance - deserve no increases even though they continue to do those jobs well.

Second the concept behind a minimum wage increase is that factors in the economy - inflation for instance - have changed in a way that have made it necessary to establish a new baseline for earnings. Now, you may argue, as many of the libertarian bent do, that the government has no business meddling in the market place and that wages should be controlled by market forces alone. That is not your position (I think) however, even this argument has nothing to do with what is "deserved." That is, the law of supply and demand dictates that, if fast food workers were in short supply (say we actually did deport all of the illegal immigrants for instance), then those wage earners would earn more than other more "deserving occupations" which were flooded with workers - say attorneys for instance. This would mean that your friend would still be eligble for more money, just to keep her working, even though she did nothing to "improve" her lot.

In short, your use of the word "deserve" betrays a prejudice: that someone must live according to a standard you have defined in order to have a living wage.

Which is bullshit. Your friend is entitled to a living wage by virtue of the fact that she shows up for work every day and does her job. Could she make more money if she made the choices you approve of? Maybe. Should she live in poverty because she does not make the choices you approve of?

I say no. Bigots, of course, say yes.

sorry, i'm a bit of a socialist.

this whole conversation is fucking ridiculous.

Someone who really, honestly hates their job and has objectively superior options available to them should probably pursue them, yes. That has nothing to do with whether or not they should make a living wage.

And that's the point, as far as I'm concerned. If you are employed on a full-time basis, whether it be through one full-time job or multiple part-time jobs that add up to full or more time, then you should be making enough money to live on. Not necessarily lead a luxurious life, but get by. It is ridiculous that we can have a working poor, especially in a country this rich.

And I really don't see how else one could ensure this other than by setting a minimum wage that meets that standard.

Not at ZPO, Inc. they won't! I'll fire the cleaning staff, contract it out for once a week to an outside firm, and have the other employees empty their own trash and keep the break room clean.

Then I'll keep a total board - updated weekly - of the money ZPO, Inc. has saved by not having a dedicated employee cleaning staff. At the end of each quarter they will vote on charities to donate the money to. The top 3 in the voting each get 33.3% of the total.

Improved employess morale, a subtle message regarding non market based payroll pricing, and a nice big tax deduction for ZPO, Inc. See, I'm creative and Machiavellian too!

So which bit is socialist? The head bit? The dick bit? Or the asshole bit?

So, now you're saying that "laziness" (as you define it, which seems a pretty weird definition to someone who works hard for a living) is on the same level as pedophilia or homocidal mania?

There's no reasoning with you at all, is there?

You don't seem like a bright guy. But you've definitely got a chip on your shoulder, too.

Basic comprehension would be something you might want to look into.

I never said what I think is better is what should happen for them, that would be absurd. All I said was if they can improve their situation and choose not to, they shouldn't complain about it. Improvement, as read here, differs between individuals.

I agree that if someone works a full time job or added equivalents of multiple jobs, they should be be able to live off the wages.

I said before, and will say again. I am not against the increase. My point was never that the minimum wage should stay the same.

No no, not at all. I merely said they were both personality traits, as you cited in your previous post.

I have no chip on my shoulder, I'm just here for a bit of a spirited, if not heated, debate.

I ahve nothing against anyone on here at all, in fact I enjoy seeing that there are intelligent people with good points to make. Aside from my asshole comment, which was admittedly uncalled for, I try to keep to the debate and not throw out any personal "attacks".

I suppose I can at least attempt to be a gentleman about this.

You've taken up a maximal position which is untenable. You say, in the post previous to this, that you're not against the raise. Yet you've pretty much argued the opposite position, and based your arguments chiefly on your annoyance with your friend Alexis.

You have a problematic definition of "laziness." Frankly, I can't imagine calling someone who works full time, at anything, "lazy." They may be unambitious, but there are a lot worse sins than that (and if you can't see the difference between pedophilia and indolence as "personality traits" you've got far worse problems than I can cope with tonight). In fact, they might just not be greedy hypercompetitive shitheads with no compunctions about screwing you over just to make a buck or even score a point. Like most of the highpowered corporate types I know. Not being a greedy hypercompetitive shithead is a plus, in my book, but I'll concede that maybe other people have different opinions. However, those opinions would be wrong.

Moreover, you've basically endorsed a line of argument that, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the withering slow death of people who work fulltime but are nevertheless somehow "lazy." By your definition. Whatever it is.

I find that disturbing. Not calling you names, or anything, but I find that disturbing.

I doubt that you're actually evil. I mean, some people are (such as the aforementioned greedy hypercompetitive shitheads with no compunctions about screwing you over just to make a buck or even score a point).I suspect you're just not really thinking through the implications of your position that - and as far as I can tell this is what it comes down to - people who are "lazy" don't have any particular (let alone inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Come to think of it, that's downright un-American of you. But we'll leave that aside for the moment.

Your response to TheGringo seems to indicate some moderation to your position. Earlier, I called that "moving the goalposts." That may have been unfair.

Indeed, I'm kind of getting the indication that the point you wanted to make is that there are opportunities available for most people and that some of those people perversely don't take advantages of those opportunities.

As a point, that still leaves a lot to be desired. You're offering no solution to this postulated problem beyond allowing these putative "lazy" hordes to waste away and die - and even that, you only advocate by implication. Which is the part I'm not sure you're quite seeing.

Anyway. I'm all wound down for the night, regardless. I worked a twelve hour shift today, as always on Saturdays, and I'll work another one on Sunday, as always. And yes, as someone who works a minimum of forty hours a week, it pisses me the fuck off when I get the sense that some fucking twenty-two year-old boy who lists his occupation as "drummer" is calling me "lazy." (And, for the sake of full disclosure, I make a lot more than minimum wage, and no, I still can't make ends meet.)

But I will say one final thing. Like immigration, this particular debate isn't really about anything materially substantive. As ZPO correctly pointed out, the minimum wage increase will affect comparatively very few workers, and as i pointed out earlier, employers who are affected are likely to shift cost-cutting efforts to other aspects of their businesses. So, again like immigration, this is not really a debate about substance at all, but rather one about philosophy, and particularly about how we regard the social contract, its strength, its purpose, and the extent of its dominion over the individual.

That's why these discussions get so heated.

Anyway, goodnight. And Merry fucking Christmas.

Well, I have to say that was a really good post.
All for all I guess it was a poor choice of words using "lazy" on my part. The attitude that irks me is more the type of "The world owes me", though I'm not really sure of the world for that.

Also, I only drum for kicks, not for a living. I actually work at the world headquarters for CIBAVision, the contact lens company. Still in college working towards a business administration type degree.

You very well may be our next Olympic hopeful....if they ever add "back peddling" as a sport.

Gee, that was clever. You make some really good points, what with the weak attempts at humor instead of presenting a counter argument.

Seriously though, 0/10 for a weak attempt to be funny.
I'd say "take the flaming somewhere else" but it seems to follow you wherever you go....

Flawedhero,

I apologize for hurting your tender chatboardfeelings. I sometimes forget the delicate egos of narcissistic kids.

Have a merry Christmas.

Love,

John

Give me a job.

Yeah, but you use your power only for good.




At least, that's what I've heard ...

I wasn't offended or hurt, I just didn't think it was all that clever or funny.

Anyways, Merry Christmas and I'll see you all on another topic.