|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It isn't who benefits from corporate profits that matters. It's who benefits from taxes. The 90+% use the roads most, have the most children in schools, etc. Why should they be beholden to a bunch of rich bastards for those things? Why not give them the dignity of paying their own way?
If the wealthy own or control 90+% of everything and benefit the most from corporate profits, why not hold their feet to the fire also? Phat writes:
Your insistence on being above the working class pisses me off.
The alternative is to tax the middle class at higher rates so that they essentially have little more than the working class. Phat writes:
No, I don't. The working class is more overburdened than the middle class.
Yes, some of us had it easier than others, but by excluding the responsibility of the rich to contribute you are forcing the middle class to become overburdened. Don't you see that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Your insistence on being above the working class pisses me off. So you would have it that there were only two classes? Rich and working?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined:
|
Somehow I missed this the first time through:
Ringo stated It isn't who benefits from corporate profits that matters. How he could come to that conclusion, when the 0.01% are EXACTLY the ones benefiting. Then Phat asks: So you would have it that there were only two classes? Rich and working? That IS what the 0.01% want. Even of the 2% below them. Edited by xongsmith, : river city P- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Life isn't fair, but offering minimum wage for a menial job is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But in English that is what force can mean. Sure, but it can mean more than that too.
The need to pay for food, rent/mortgage, healthcare etc is pretty strong. A person might not be forced to work a particular job, but in general they are forced to work. And if all the salaries are basically the same for that job then they are forced, by this circumstance, to accept that salary or thereabouts. That circumstance is influenced heavily (but not exclusively) by large companies with their large influence on the job market. That's business - if you're in a position where you cannot negotiate then that is your fault not your potential employer's.
But now you understand Phat was not talking about physical coercion. I understand that you think he wasn't talking about physical coercion... I haven't heard from him about it, he just acknowledge my reply.
We need to work together to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie using the leverage of negotiating in a bloc rather than independently. This is just as much 'just doing business' as anything the corporate world gets up to. So you are no longer 'lost' at the word 'force'? I agree with you, but I don't know what Phat meant - so I'm still lost on him. Also, I wouldn't use the word force in that context, so no, I'm not really on board with the semantics. With the principle, sure, do what you gotta do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
How do you distinguish yourself from the working class?
So you would have it that there were only two classes? Rich and working?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
But they're not. How he could come to that conclusion, when the 0.01% are EXACTLY the ones benefiting. You should have read the whole post: It's who benefits from the taxes that matters. Who drives on the roads? Or rides buses on the roads or bicyles on the roads or walks on the roads? Who sends their children to the schools? Who uses the libraries? Who uses the sewers? Edited by ringo, : Removed superfluous words and words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
But minimum wages aren't just for "menial" jobs. They're for wherever the employer can get away with exploiting his workers. And they bring all wages down.
Life isn't fair, but offering minimum wage for a menial job is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 241 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Sure, but it can mean more than that too. Well that's English for you. Fortunately the context of a word is helpful in understanding its usage. I haven't heard Phat incite violence before, and given he was talking about unionising, it seems pretty clear what it meant in its context.
That's business - if you're in a position where you cannot negotiate then that is your fault not your potential employer's. It's the fault of neither, it's just the nature of the system.
I understand that you think he wasn't talking about physical coercion... I haven't heard from him about it, he just acknowledge my reply. Well he 'Cheered' my post, seems like endorsement that I had the correct interpretation of his words to me. My interpretation was consistent with his character, and his other comments on this subject. I think I have a good case that he was using the word 'force' just like most other English speakers do all the time.
Also, I wouldn't use the word force in that context, so no, I'm not really on board with the semantics. When communicating with English speakers you still need to anticipate that they may use words differently than you. Besides which:
quote: Message 569 quote: Message 447 quote: Message 346 quote: Message 37 quote:Message 757 quote: quote:Message 218 But either way - I think the most natural and obvious reading of Phat is one of talking about making someone do something against their will using peaceful means such as cooperating with one another and selective witholding of labour. Phat's 'cheer' seems to concur. English seems to be on my side. As do some of your own previous posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And why is that? Do you work harder than the non-union cashier at the supermarket down the street?
I have no debtI have a savings account I make more than I need to live on
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
And why is that? Because I belong to a union, thank God!
Do you work harder than the non-union cashier at the supermarket down the street? Not necessarily. What difference does it make? We would invite them to join the union also, except that their employer tries to actively prevent us from talking with them about it. If all of the cashiers were in the union, it would be the same as the working class uniting with the middle class, which is apparently what you hope to achieve. Without a union, the employers simply continue to hire more help at cheap-as-possible rates and fire them rather than promote them excepting the few who become managers. We have discussed unionism before. Our last contract was, in fact, one of the top grocery contracts negotiated in the entire country. We helped bring the bottom closer to the top wage bracket. The only sad and telling thing was that few of the workers even bothered to vote. Today's generation only looks to the paycheck at the moment rather than planning long term for their livelihood and health care, it seems.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
but offering minimum wage for a menial job is. Now on this, I can agree. Offering minimum wage for any job is fair.It is also fair for the labor market to organize and to negotiate a higher wage. But the combination of minimum wages, and "right to work" laws that deny the ability for workers to negotiate is an unfair combination. It is particularly so when society has to pick up the difference by offering things like SNAP to employees. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Holy shit, you dug up posts of mine from over three years ago?
Wait a minute... Did you query the database directly or something? Select all messages submitted by me that contain the word force?Or did you find that through Google? 'Cause if you're using database administrator privileges to try to score debate points against me then I'm going to stop replying to you.
Well that's English for you. Fortunately the context of a word is helpful in understanding its usage. Sure, this context is workers forcing their employers to share wealth.
I haven't heard Phat incite violence before, and given he was talking about unionising, it seems pretty clear what it meant in its context. I never thought that Phat meant inciting violence, but his meaning isn't that clear to me.
It's the fault of neither, Cool, fault is a strong word - I meant that it is "more your fault than there's"; not in the sense that you alone are solely culpable, but in the sense that the onus is on you to establish your position in a negotiation and not your employer's.
it's just the nature of the system. Okay.
Well he 'Cheered' my post, seems like endorsement that I had the correct interpretation of his words to me. Oh, I hadn't seen that. I can accept that you've accurately reflected Phat's meaning.
I think I have a good case that he was using the word 'force' just like most other English speakers do all the time. Mostly? It totally depends on the context...
When communicating with English speakers you still need to anticipate that they may use words differently than you. I get that we need to be speaking the same language, but I don't have to use a word in a way that I don't want to. In that sense, if you want to talk about forcing the employers, then no I'm not on board.
Besides which: So first off, that was weird - digging up old shit like that. Secondly, I do try to be consistent within a thread, but not so much across threads.And I am capable of changing my mind, so I wouldn't expect consistency over time on the order of years. Now, context is important, and I'm gonna address this, but before I do: When I talk about force, I look at it in the sense of consent. If it is consensual, then I prolly won't have a problem with it. If it isn't, then I prolly will. It's about people having to go against their will, not having a choice in the matter, it being involuntary, when it starts becoming more like coercion than convincing - that's when I don't like it. Sure, the word can be used to describe consensual and voluntary actions - I just prefer not to use it that way. So:
quote: Message 569 The broader context is this:
quote: Forced, as in "against their will", to choose between X and Y. This is consistent with my current usage. Further context:
quote: Going the legal route of making these business serve people against their will, that is, forcing them to do it is worse than talking to them about it in person and persuading them that they should serve the people willingly, that is, convincing them to do it. Now, you could say that convincing them forced them to do it - but that is just not how I want to use that word because I think the distinction is important.
The broader context of that, including from previous messages is:
As I've said, belief in god is binary. I don't agree with that. You can maybe-believe or kinda-believe... Then you'd be a theist. By maybe-believing? Nah, you're just trying to force your usage again. In that context, the other person was trying to prevent me, against my will, from use the phrase "belief in god" as something other than being binary. So yeah, force.
quote: Message 346 That broader context:
Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws. It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way. It's that approach of running to and using an authority to force your dissenters into compliance rather than working with them and coming to an agreement that I find distasteful. Again, I'm against making somebody do something against their will instead of persuading them to want to do it.
quote: Message 37 From that same message:
quote: Again, I'm arguing against making poeple do something against their will instead of convincing them to do it willingly.
quote:Message 757 Okay, that one I did use the word more loosely - not typical of me tho.
quote: No link to context, not sure - I was prolly thinking something along the lines of loosing access to the substance, which would force you against your will to quit.
quote:Message 218 Context:
The example we are given is the fork in the road where we have to decide whether to take the one with the bridge or otherwise. We are forced to think critically. The difference between us seems to me to be that: For you, if you're forced to make a decision and you're using the best means available, then you're considering that critical thinking. For me, if I'm forced to make a decision and the best means available aren't enough for me to consider my thoughts critically, then I don't call that critical thinking even if the best I can do at the time. In the hypothetical situation, you are literally forced against your will to make a decision - that is consistent with my usage not yours.
But either way - I think the most natural and obvious reading of Phat is one of talking about making someone do something against their will using peaceful means such as cooperating with one another and selective witholding of labour. That's fine - as I said: If you're "forcing" people by negotiating, then to me that's just doing business. It's when you start getting into coercion that I start having a problem with it. So regarding "We need to force these corporations to share more of the wealth!", no, I'm still not on board. I think it would be better to persuade them to willingly share the wealth over forcing them to do it.
Phat's 'cheer' seems to concur. That's the most convincing evidence.
English seems to be on my side. As do some of your own previous posts. I disagree that my previous posts are on your side. Regarding English, a wise man told me:
quote: Next time you dig up old shit from over 3 years ago I'm not gonna reply to it so if that's what you're looking for then don't waste your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
NoNukes writes: I totally and fully agree!
Offering minimum wage for any job is fair.It is also fair for the labor market to organize and to negotiate a higher wage. But the combination of minimum wages, and "right to work" laws that deny the ability for workers to negotiate is an unfair combination. It is particularly so when society has to pick up the difference by offering things like SNAP to employees. NCE writes: Negotiations involve both sides. There is no onus on any one side.
... in the sense that the onus is on you to establish your position in a negotiation and not your employer's. if you want to talk about forcing the employers, then no I'm not on board. Are you anti union, then? Because we will call a strike if necessary to protect our position. The alternative is to accept less than what we collectively determine our value to be. We prefer negotiations and voluntary compliance but will use some force(non-violent) if necessary. After all, nobody gets to tell the CEO's what to pay themselves!Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024