So. That new minimum wage thing. Might as well start disgusing it here.

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
If Rand's philosophy was around back in the start of civilization we would still be living in caves or wood huts.
That's a hoot. Many in our "civilization" today still do live in caves and huts, including our president's brother not long ago.

Those of us that do not can thank our lucky stars that people following Rand's philosophy (before she formulated it from observation) built this world for us.

The "it takes a village" philosophy only applies to raising the village idiot.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
The overwhelming majority of people that decry the greed of companies for not paying a living wage to all of their employees or that a company might choose to hire someone that will do the same job for less do not hesitate or see anything wrong when they do the exact same thing. They want their carpets cleaned? They shop around for the best deal. They want to buy a car? They shop around for the best deal. Two gas stations a block apart have prices that differ by 10 cents/gallon -- which station do they get their gas at? Do they pay a "living wage" to their baby sitter? If they tell their neighbors that they are looking for someone to spend an afternoon weeding their garden and one kid offers to do it for half what another kid offers to do it for, do they tell the low bidder to take a hike?
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
It's the way people raise their kids. Without a proper reference, education will not help.

They can not accept reason. Their lives and sense are based on emotion.

They haven't seen a real adult, so they don't know how to grow up.
 

Thread Starter

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
That largely goes with my belief system as well.

Is the person willing to do your job better than you for less stealing your job while you are out shopping around to get the best deal on the new vehicle you want to buy with the raise you strong armed your employer into giving you or did the earn it when you didn't?

Or is the guy who takes that job you won't lower yourself to take really stealing it from you or anyone else?

I for one have zero problems with stealing work from greedy people. Especially those who are greedy and do low-quality work and I have even less problem with pointing out the real operating costs of doing any form af work I am familiar and skilled in as well just to show how greedy the other guy is or how poorly they manage money while doing your work. :mad:
 

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
248
Do they pay a "living wage" to their baby sitter? If they tell their neighbors that they are looking for someone to spend an afternoon weeding their garden and one kid offers to do it for half what another kid offers to do it for, do they tell the low bidder to take a hike?
You're right in many ways but the kid that was willing to do it for 1/2 seems somewhat off and I'm not sure that I'm willing to trust him with my (fictional)kids. Without a background check there is;)
 

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
248
It's the way people raise their kids. Without a proper reference, education will not help.

They can not accept reason. Their lives and sense are based on emotion.

They haven't seen a real adult, so they don't know how to grow up.
Reasoning, devoid of emotion is what science is all about. However the rest of our lives in a society boils down to many man made rules. Our businesses and financial system being one/two of them.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
You're right in many ways but the kid that was willing to do it for 1/2 seems somewhat off and I'm not sure that I'm willing to trust him with my (fictional)kids. Without a background check there is;)
Note that you are mixing two scenarios -- the 1/2 price is for weeding your garden, so unless you've done something with your kids that you don't want us to know about.... :D

Unstated in all of those scenarios (and I thought about stating it, but decided that I'd take the change that it was sufficiently implied) is that we are talking about substantially equal options. If you know that the gas station with the lower price has water and silt in its tanks, then you might not get gas there at any price. If you know the low price carpet cleaner does crappy work, same thing. We're talking about situations where the only discernible difference is cost.
 

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
34,285
We all know that people are generally greedy and capitalism is based upon greed. No argument there (Gordon Gekko said it all).
If you consider that fair and you don't want the government interfering with that, then we have Rand's philosophy and we'll end up with a few people owning all the wealth (more so than it already is).
But I don't consider that fair and that's why regulation is needed.
When there's a lack of regulation we end up with Wall Street caused meltdowns of the economy, the likes of Enron, and the Savings and Loan debacle.

You really think that the CEO earning $20 million plus a year is actually worth that much to the company?
Or that he deserves a big bonus even when the company has lost money?
He's mainly making that because of the incestuous nature between the corporations and the board of directors made up of other CEOs who determine his pay.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
When there's a lack of regulation we end up with Wall Street caused meltdowns of the economy, the likes of Enron, and the Savings and Loan debacle.
But their living by the Rand principle, "I got mine and now I'm after yours, I'm the only one that counts in life."
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
We all know that people are generally greedy and capitalism is based upon greed. No argument there (Gordon Gekko said it all).
If you consider that fair and you don't want the government interfering with that, then we have Rand's philosophy and we'll end up with a few people owning all the wealth (more so than it already is).
But I don't consider that fair and that's why regulation is needed.
When there's a lack of regulation we end up with Wall Street caused meltdowns of the economy, the likes of Enron, and the Savings and Loan debacle.

You really think that the CEO earning $20 million plus a year is actually worth that much to the company?
Or that he deserves a big bonus even when the company has lost money?
He's mainly making that because of the incestuous nature between the corporations and the board of directors made up of other CEOs who determine his pay.
Is an actor or actress that makes $20 million for a three month film-shoot actually worth that much? Is an athlete that makes $20 million for a partial-year season really actually worth that much.

Is a CEO that makes $20 million/year (and there are damn few of them -- less than 100 according to the AFL-CIO) really robbing all of their employees of so much money. Let's take WalMart, whose CEO is just under that $20 million/year figure. WalMart has 1.5 million employees in the U.S. alone (2.3 million world wide). So let's take ALL of the CEO's pay and spread it across the lowest paid one million employees of WalMart. They could enjoy a massive pay raise of just over $13 a year, or a dollar a month, or (assuming part-time at 20 hours/week) just over a penny and hour.

If YOU owned a business that employed 50 workers would you feel it unreasonable if you made, on average, $1/hr for each employee (or about $100k/yr)? If you grew the business so that it employed 10,000 workers, would you REALLY believe that you still only deserved $100k/yr? If so, then why go through the nearly uncountable headaches needed to grow the business? Just leave it at 50 workers and be happy. If you grew the company by 100x, would you feel it unreasonable that your compensation go up by 10x (so that you would be getting $0.10/hr per employee)? So why shouldn't someone heading company 100x THAT not get a compensation that is 10x LESS per employee?

I'm going to stay away from the oft-repeated frame that Wall Street was solely responsible for the meltdown and that government policy had nothing to do with it.

If you want government to dictate what a CEO of a company can make, then I take it that you won't have a problem when that same government dictates what YOU can make and what YOU have to pay your babysitter or anyone else that you might consider entering into an agreement with.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Is a basketball player worth $20M? If not, why?
One the one hand, if the team's operations are such that the player will bring in substantially more than what they are paid, I have no problem.

What I DO have a bit of a problem with is that the people paying money into that team are not all doing it of their own free will -- in fact most of them aren't. When an advertiser pays huge money to a team (or sponsors a NASCAR team, or you have it), then all of the people that don't give a hoot about that sport have to share the cost the same as the fans do. If the team's income came exclusively (or mostly) from on-site sales (seats, concessions) and merchandizing, I'd be much happier about it.

I don't have a solution for that (or at least not one that is acceptably consistent with my philosophy), so I have to accept it.

But I really have a problem with actors and athletes that make millions a year complaining about CEOs that, by and large, make considerably less. Especially when they go on about some CEO making 300x what the janitor makes. What about the multiple for that actor that made $20 million for a three month shoot compared to the lowest paid person on the set?
 

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
248
For me it isn't the problem what my boss gets out of it(she/he could be swimming in money for all I care). It is what do I get out of it in return for my services. And how can I justify my time spent at that job.

That is a time I'll never get back.
 

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
248
The thing is that people want you to believe that mandatory minimum wages will hurt small time businesses more the the monopoly that has taken place. There is no land to claim as your own on this planet and even if you would find some, await the giants.
 
Top