Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Vazdania]

Bullshit. That would result in massive strikes, It's utterly imperative for companies to pay employees a living wage. Employees, with the right to unionize, improve their situation much better without intervention by the state.
Nothing, that is the function of the union, businesses are necessarily greedy? That is there function, an employee owned company is also greedy. Business shouldn't be employee owned.

Employee owned businesses can succeed just like any other business. There are many large and successful businesses run in such a way. https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=employee-owned+businesses&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies

I don't deny this?

[Geilinor]

That is why we capitalism is bad and should be replaced with a more stable economic system.

Capitalism is good, and is the only reliable economic system, socialism and communism are ineffectual and are in no way practical, they are pipe dream (which are much more of a pipe nightmare if you think about it) that should be buried before they get a chance to rear their ugly heads.

So is anarcho-capitalism.

[Vazdania]

Capitalism is good, and is the only reliable economic system, socialism and communism are ineffectual and are in no way practical, they are pipe dream (which are much more of a pipe nightmare if you think about it) that should be buried before they get a chance to rear their ugly heads.

Communism isn't an economic system.

Indeed it is, regardless of the fact that it lacks money, goods are still traded...That is an economic system.

[Vazdania]

Capitalism is good, and is the only reliable economic system, socialism and communism are ineffectual and are in no way practical, they are pipe dream (which are much more of a pipe nightmare if you think about it) that should be buried before they get a chance to rear their ugly heads.

So is anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho capitalism is stupid.

[Ardoki]

Communism isn't an economic system.

Indeed it is, regardless of the fact that it lacks money, goods are still traded...That is an economic system.

Socialism is an economic system and a communist society is socialist. Communism uses the economic system of socialism but it is so much more, it is an advanced stage of socialism where a post-scarcity society has been reached.

[Viritica]

Right now it's about 7 dollars. Why would you want it to skyrocket to 20 dollars? That is ludicrous and employers couldn't afford it[.

Source?

Some interesting sauce for you.

And this.

[Vazdania]

Indeed it is, regardless of the fact that it lacks money, goods are still traded...That is an economic system.

Socialism is an economic system and a communist society is socialist. Communism uses the economic system of socialism but it is so much more, it is an advanced stage of socialism where a post-scarcity society has been reached.

Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society....I.e. It uses a primitive economic system (Barter, I suppose?) to move goods around.

[Arkinesia]

What's the lowest level possible without a minimum wage? A few dollars an hour?

If workers are allowed to Unionize, and the state keeps its ugly hand out of the situation, employees are paid better than in places with a minimum wage...for example, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Germany has no minimum wage and a Gini coefficient of .28, which is pretty sexy.

A lot sexier than our .45.

[Geilinor]

If workers are allowed to Unionize, and the state keeps its ugly hand out of the situation, employees are paid better than in places with a minimum wage...for example, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Germany has no minimum wage and a Gini coefficient of .28, which is pretty sexy.

A lot sexier than our .45.

Germany's current coalition was formed with an agreement to pass a minimum wage. There's still demand for one.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

Source?

Some interesting sauce for you.

And this.

Forbes is not a reliable source. As for NFIB, I don't see any sort of economic study or proof especially when it's compared to past studies by actual economists from all different economic schools that have said that a rise in minimum wage should not effect unemployment as long as it is gradually raised due to the elasticity of the market for minimum wage workers. A price hike could happen, but most likely will not. McDonalds has already raised prices for example, they will blame this on the inevitable hike in the minimum wage even though it was done at the start of 2014 before any hikes went into place.

[Arkinesia]

Germany has no minimum wage and a Gini coefficient of .28, which is pretty sexy.

A lot sexier than our .45.

Germany's current coalition was formed with an agreement to pass a minimum wage. There's still demand for one.

Which is irrelevant, as their income inequality has remained at a good level without the minimum wage.

[Geilinor]

Germany's current coalition was formed with an agreement to pass a minimum wage. There's still demand for one.

Which is irrelevant, as their income inequality has remained at a good level without the minimum wage.

Germany doesn't have a hostile approach to unions and they're legally mandated to have seats on company boards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

[Viritica]

Some interesting sauce for you.

And this.

Forbes is not a reliable source. As for NFIB, I don't see any sort of economic study or proof especially when it's compared to past studies by actual economists from all different economic schools that have said that a rise in minimum wage should not effect unemployment as long as it is gradually raised due to the elasticity of the market for minimum wage workers. A price hike could happen, but most likely will not. McDonalds has already raised prices for example, they will blame this on the inevitable hike in the minimum wage even though it was done at the start of 2014 before any hikes went into place.

Forbes is perfectly reliable.

The second source is talking about small business, not mega fast food chains like McDonald's. Small businesses are typically the ones most affected by minimum wage hikes.

[Geilinor]

Forbes is not a reliable source. As for NFIB, I don't see any sort of economic study or proof especially when it's compared to past studies by actual economists from all different economic schools that have said that a rise in minimum wage should not effect unemployment as long as it is gradually raised due to the elasticity of the market for minimum wage workers. A price hike could happen, but most likely will not. McDonalds has already raised prices for example, they will blame this on the inevitable hike in the minimum wage even though it was done at the start of 2014 before any hikes went into place.

Forbes is perfectly reliable.

The second source is talking about small business, not mega fast food chains like McDonald's. Small businesses are typically the ones most affected by minimum wage hikes.

You realize that Forbes is mostly opinion pieces?

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

Forbes is not a reliable source. As for NFIB, I don't see any sort of economic study or proof especially when it's compared to past studies by actual economists from all different economic schools that have said that a rise in minimum wage should not effect unemployment as long as it is gradually raised due to the elasticity of the market for minimum wage workers. A price hike could happen, but most likely will not. McDonalds has already raised prices for example, they will blame this on the inevitable hike in the minimum wage even though it was done at the start of 2014 before any hikes went into place.

Forbes is perfectly reliable.

The second source is talking about small business, not mega fast food chains like McDonald's. Small businesses are typically the ones most affected by minimum wage hikes.

Forbes is mostly opinions and carries a heavy right-wing bias. That's like me sourcing the Pravada.

The second source has no economic evidence whatsoever. Small businesses may be effected and if they are will be hit the hardest, this is correct. However, small businesses generally pay higher wages in order to compete with these larger businesses for employees.

[Arkinesia]

Which is irrelevant, as their income inequality has remained at a good level without the minimum wage.

Germany doesn't have a hostile approach to unions and they're legally mandated to have seats on company boards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

Yeah and I support that. I support full rights and mobility of unions.

[The Liberated Territories]

No. I'd donate to charities, help local people, etc.

All of which is already done and yet we still see many people in desperate poverty. Government programs to help the poor are simply an efficient use of resources as the money used to help the poor means a lot more to them than it does to the rich as to have so little of it. It's a simple case of diminishing marginal utility.

But it doesn't. Billions of dollars have gone into feeding and clothing the poor, and yet poverty has only grown worse. In America, nothing in the constitution authorizes mass scale redistribution on the government's part. People can't even watch track of their own budgets, yet such programs take a small amount of their money anyway to save other people's. In the long run, it won't make anyone richer. Who heard of getting richer by losing money to help millions of other people you've never met or heard of? I sure haven't. The rich and middle class, some of whom who built it up themselves, who have plenty of money, already share the greater burden of taxes and some of the richest 1% (e.g. Bill Gates) donate millions of dollars to charity all voluntarily. Yet you say this is not enough and demand more money. How much is there to give when a lot is already given, and so little progress is shown?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf ... -the-poor/

[Bythibus]

You realize there is an upper limit to what an economy can handle in the way of cash influx, right? Too much too fast is a very, very negative thing.

And the purpose of minimum wage is not to allow us to buy what we want, it's to ensure we can survive on our income.

That is why we capitalism is bad and should be replaced with a more stable economic system.

That's a leap you're gonna have to justify.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Democracy says no such thing. Democracy, as an abstract concept, is unable to speak. I believe that you mean that the idea that your opinion is as valid as anyone else is a basic underpinning of democracy. This, too, is incorrect. In a free and democratic society (particularly in a republic with a Constitution), you have the right to vote your conscience. You also have the right to speak your mind within certain public safety limitations. This does not make your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's. Indeed, your posts are evidence that one can opine freely regarding matters about which one has no education, insight, or experience whatsoever.

You have missed the point of my post, and are being extremely acute.

I only originally pointed out a small fact equating poverty and intelligence, which both, similar to democracy, are abstract concepts. The "poor," as Biden had pointed out first, are only "poor" comparatively to the rich. There will always be people in poverty in the capitalist system, which I underlined a few posts ago yet in a less clear manner.

Regarding your post, why, then, should I, a person who has misjudged the poor from my position, involve myself in a program (anti-poverty) that does not affect me personally, except through the taxes needed to sustain it AND my knowledge that the programs do not work as evidence by the growing poverty?

I'm going to need a source that these programs don't work. This will require a clarification what you mean by "work" before you provide said sources.

[Arkinesia]

Democracy says no such thing. Democracy, as an abstract concept, is unable to speak. I believe that you mean that the idea that your opinion is as valid as anyone else is a basic underpinning of democracy. This, too, is incorrect. In a free and democratic society (particularly in a republic with a Constitution), you have the right to vote your conscience. You also have the right to speak your mind within certain public safety limitations. This does not make your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's. Indeed, your posts are evidence that one can opine freely regarding matters about which one has no education, insight, or experience whatsoever.

You have missed the point of my post, and are being extremely acute.

I only originally pointed out a small fact equating poverty and intelligence, which both, similar to democracy, are abstract concepts. The "poor," as Biden had pointed out first, are only "poor" comparatively to the rich. There will always be people in poverty in the capitalist system, which I underlined a few posts ago yet in a less clear manner.

Regarding your post, why, then, should I, a person who has misjudged the poor from my position, involve myself in a program (anti-poverty) that does not affect me personally, except through the taxes needed to sustain it AND my knowledge that the programs do not work as evidence by the growing poverty?

If you seriously can't come up with a justification for why the poor should be able to eat in a society that calls itself “developed,” I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to school, young man.

Social darwinism is quite frankly a piss-poor economic policy, and god damn it, I'm a capitalist.

Also, food stamps put $2 into the economy for every $1 spent on them, so there's that.

[The Neo-Confederate States of America]

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

This^

[Ardoki]

Socialism is an economic system and a communist society is socialist. Communism uses the economic system of socialism but it is so much more, it is an advanced stage of socialism where a post-scarcity society has been reached.

Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society....I.e. It uses a primitive economic system (Barter, I suppose?) to move goods around.

Where on earth would you get the idea of barter in a communist society from?
Do you even know what communism is because you seem to have no clue?

A communist society would be post-scarcity, meaning there would be an abundance of goods available due to advances in technology and production. Everyone's needs would be satisfied and their wants to a degree (unrealistic wants wouldn't be met; a purple hippo for example), everything would be freely available to the people.

[Emile Zola]

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

This^

You couldn't be more wrong.

I'm currently reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty and by collecting data on incomes and wealth in 20 countries over three centuries he discovered that capitalism is inherently unequal. Why? Because the rate on return on capital is higher then the growth of wages. In other words you can work as hard as you like but your wages will only rise with growth of GDP at 1% while someone sitting on a pile of shares is raking in the cash at 4 to 5%. So unless you acquire some capital your life will be literally grinding away at some job while an exceptional few maybe through hard work but most likely through sheer luck such as inheritance will live a life you can only dream of. There are solutions but they ain't pretty.

[Ardoki]

This^

You couldn't be more wrong.

I'm currently reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty and by collecting data on incomes and wealth in 20 countries over three centuries he discovered that capitalism is inherently unequal. Why? Because the rate on return on capital is higher then the growth of wages. In other words you can work as hard as you like but your wages will only rise with growth of GDP at 1% while someone sitting on a pile of shares is raking in the cash at 4 to 5%. So unless you acquire some capital your life will be literally grinding away at some job while an exceptional few maybe through hard work but most likely through sheer luck such as inheritance will live a life you can only dream of. There are solutions but they ain't pretty.

This is correct comrade.

[Norstal]

You have missed the point of my post, and are being extremely acute.

I only originally pointed out a small fact equating poverty and intelligence, which both, similar to democracy, are abstract concepts. The "poor," as Biden had pointed out first, are only "poor" comparatively to the rich. There will always be people in poverty in the capitalist system, which I underlined a few posts ago yet in a less clear manner.

Regarding your post, why, then, should I, a person who has misjudged the poor from my position, involve myself in a program (anti-poverty) that does not affect me personally, except through the taxes needed to sustain it AND my knowledge that the programs do not work as evidence by the growing poverty?

If you seriously can't come up with a justification for why the poor should be able to eat in a society that calls itself “developed,” I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to school, young man.

Social darwinism is quite frankly a piss-poor economic policy, and god damn it, I'm a capitalist.

Also, food stamps put $2 into the economy for every $1 spent on them, so there's that.

It's quite surprising how many self-proclaimed capitalists wants a communist revolution to happen. I'm talking about those other guys who wants to end welfare and food stamps and such.

I mean, like, they should know the reason why the communist revolution happened and want that to not happen ever ever again. Alas.