|
I can't tell if the OP is serious or just a poo poo attempt at humour. Either way, a living wage is a good thing and I hope it soon develops into a basic minimum income. Thanks, God bless.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Please oh please tell me what a lovely degree is. I dare you.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
The economy should serve the people, not the other way around. Profit and accumulation should only be allowed insofar as it benefits the poorest (as per Rawls). There is literally no common justification for the existence of private property (except maybe Nozick's) that is sound in the approaching age without atleast a heavily redistributive element. Personally I think if mincome was a thing, it would force businesses to drive wages up to entice people to give up their time. Let's be honest, money is necessarily finite and must be drawn from somewhere. With low/no minimum wage, more people might potentially be employed (in lovely jobs which they can't properly sustain themselves on). These extra jobs are effectively subsidised on the savings made between a proper living wage and the wage being paid. The argument made by the people against min wage is that if this subsidy disappears, then people would lose their jobs. How about instead, employers retain those people and make less short term profit (if your beliefs about min wage wrt unemployment are true). Unless they are operating on thin margins (which I grant do exist), most employers can afford to take a pay cut themselves to keep more people employed. Edit : anticipating the 'but muh ma and pop' argument. Ok, how about this, we implement a minimum wage that is contingent on the salary of the highest paid person in a given company. Somebody being paid $400,000, fine, the wage floor is $40,000 for anybody in that company. Ma and pop stores, if they aren't paying ludicrous money to themselves, won't be forced to pay higher salaries to others. a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
The economy is meant to serve as a method of distributing resources. Private property itself is predicated on a utilitarian argument, even the ones grounded in natural law (Locke, Grotius etc). Therefore businesses exist solely for the good of the society that they inhabit.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yep and this is fundamentally a practical argument. Make practical arguments all day long. "Minimum wage is the best policy for X". Minimum wage is not the best policy necessarily, but it is one of many potentially sufficient policies that are necessary to justify the ongoing existence of private property and businesses, all of which require a more substantial redistributive effort over what we currently have. As I said before, the economy exists to serve people. If it isn't serving people (and per every major justification of private property, it is not meeting these conditions) then it needs to change.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:Is this exactly true? I thought Locke believed in a natural right to property via self-ownership and that a right to property was socially beneficial, not that it was a natural right because it was beneficial. Lockean proviso. Yes we make something our own through labour, but if not enough is left in common to do that, then this right is effectively meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
That's what progressive taxation is for you colossal imbecile. If a student benefits a lot with a higher salary, they in turn pay more to allow others to do the same.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If they're able to do that + pay some of the cost of that education that's even better from the state's perspective. That's what a higher income tax is for. Student pays nothing upfront, if they get a good job, then they contribute towards it. Some will pay nothing, some will pay something, and the lucky few will subsidise the rest.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Eh how many different times can you double dip the progressive taxation angle? Education and knowledge is valuable in of itself, or atleast ought to be treated that way to produce the best returns. quote:more fair Well no, what's more fair is free education for everybody. quote:and less likely to result in people dicking around after an expensive education. Do you think people do that now? That they come out of education and think 'welp that's me done cba with a job and money and a house and all that crap'.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
drat sixteen-wheeler pussies know nothing of complexity, try handling logistics for an airline then come back to me.. 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Considering there are many companies using software to manage their fleets today, I think you might be overestimating your value in your organization. I don't disagree with what you're saying, it will get to the point where machines replace us in pretty much every field that doesn't in some way rely on innately human qualities (like therapy), but logistics is not as straightforwardly algorithmic as you make it sound, not by a long shot. Equipment goes wrong all the loving time and you have to do a hell of a lot of rerouting. weather conditions, timescales, the job is extremely unpredictable in its variables and the solution is a matter of problem solving. Machines are getting better at problem solving through the 'big data' approach (IE they compensate for a lack of human judgement by having access to vast quantities of data from previous scenarios that it can amalgamate). Landing an aircraft is one such example where we are making big leaps in this area. However, planning around unforeseen and unique circumstances (half of what logistics management is) is nowhere near at the same level. Fantastic paper entitled 'The future of employment' done by a pair of quality researchers, they apply some useful methodology to break down the probability of jobs being automated. I encourage you to have a look.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This was a pro read, thanks for mentioning it. You're welcome. I've literally just finished a paper on this very topic but it's dry theory, these guys on the other hand have come up with a really good addition to the otherwise anaemic literature on this issue.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because they are poor and their state governments make bad economic policy decisions? It's at this point I feel compelled to state that there is no widely accepted justification for the existence of private property (but for the divine right of kings) that is valid in the face of significant and far reaching inequality.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The idea that farmers deserve less than others is entirely a human construction. It is not a result of the fact that farmers are naturally inferior, or that farmland is naturally inferior to the concrete slab under a bank. This appeal to nature is just weird; it is entirely the result of flawed circular reasoning. Poor areas are poor because they are naturally poor. They are naturally poor because they are poor. There is an implicit entanglement with virtue ethics. Farmers are poor because what they do lacks some objective 'virtue' or 'value'. Many philosophers will make an appeal to natural law or human nature thereafter to explain the poorness, but as with any absolutist standard, it can be crippled quite handily by skeptic arguments.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Somebody just got a philosophy degree. How cute. Do you have a philosophy degree? (I don't).
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 16:12
|
|