If you really want to end Poverty, Focus on Labor Unions

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Its my job to make you pay the workers more, not fire ANY.... its my job to make you hire MORE workers, for MORE money EACH, and if you don't like it, don't be in business at all.

Then people won't be. They will go out of business, and no one is being paid anything at all.

That's your objective?

Fire union workers and what happens is you get your business shut down by the state, and they go and get new Jobs under leadership that isn't an asshole... and you get to know that you never will see a business license again.

Oh, it is your objective. "Hah! Pay us more or pay us nothing! Oh, wait, you're paying us nothing."

Business isn't sports.
In business, if you get the job done right, you got it done period.

1. Sports is a business.
2. So no salesman is better at making sales than any other? No writer better at writing? No accountant faster at running the numbers? Are you really making the claim that no-one is more skilled than anyone else at anything?

Good, assholes should go out of business and new DECENT people will be IN business.
You're not the only businessman in the world, its our job to make sure that you obey our laws while you are one.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

No there is no professional writer better at writing than any other professional writer.
There is no professional salesperson better at making sales than any other professional salesperson.
There is no professional accountant better than another.

What sells the most is quality not sales pitches.

That's your bullshit wanting to discriminate for your own abilities to personally LIKE your employees, not society's job to uphold.

[Xelsis]

Then people won't be. They will go out of business, and no one is being paid anything at all.

That's your objective?



Oh, it is your objective. "Hah! Pay us more or pay us nothing! Oh, wait, you're paying us nothing."



1. Sports is a business.
2. So no salesman is better at making sales than any other? No writer better at writing? No accountant faster at running the numbers? Are you really making the claim that no-one is more skilled than anyone else at anything?

Good, assholes should go out of business and new DECENT people will be IN business.
You're not the only businessman in the world, its our job to make sure that you obey our laws while you are one.

It has nothing to do with how nice the businesspeople are. If you are the nicest person on earth, and you pay your workers more than they return to the business in profit, you will lose money, and you will go out of business. It is as simple as that.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Good, assholes should go out of business and new DECENT people will be IN business.
You're not the only businessman in the world, its our job to make sure that you obey our laws while you are one.

It has nothing to do with how nice the businesspeople are. If you are the nicest person on earth, and you pay your workers more than they return to the business in profit, you will lose money, and you will go out of business. It is as simple as that.

There has never been ANY case (ever) of a black guy or a person with Asperger syndrome, or a Woman, or a person with Cerebral Palsy, or a Person with Schizophrenia, or a person with an Intellectual disability, or a Puerto rican, or a Mexican, or a German, or a Chinese person or a Jew, or a Crippled person who ever had customers refuse to give the business money, because those people were the servers.
Never.
Period.

In fact more inclusive businesses earn MORE.

[Demetland]

It has nothing to do with how nice the businesspeople are. If you are the nicest person on earth, and you pay your workers more than they return to the business in profit, you will lose money, and you will go out of business. It is as simple as that.

There has never been ANY case (ever) of a black guy or a person with Asperger syndrome, or a Woman, or a person with Cerebral Palsy, or a Person with Schizophrenia, or a person with an Intellectual disability, or a Puerto rican, or a Mexican, or a German, or a Chinese person or a Jew, or a Crippled person who ever had customers refuse to give the business money, because those people were the servers.
Never.
Period.

You might want to read this: Non sequitur.

[Xelsis]

It has nothing to do with how nice the businesspeople are. If you are the nicest person on earth, and you pay your workers more than they return to the business in profit, you will lose money, and you will go out of business. It is as simple as that.

There has never been a black guy or a person with Asperger syndrome, or a Puerto rican, or a Mexican, or a German, or a Chinese person or a Jew, or a Crippled person who ever had customers refuse to give the business money, because those people were the servers.
Never.
Period.

No person from Little Rock, Arkansas has ever successfully created a full-scale Star Destroyer.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Whenever you're proven wrong you spring off and say something completely tangential to the topic.

If you pay workers more than they contribute to the company, your company will go out of business, and you will pay those workers nothing. I continue to wait for you to address the point that your way to "end poverty" is a recipe for raising it dramatically through mass unemployment.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

There has never been a black guy or a person with Asperger syndrome, or a Puerto rican, or a Mexican, or a German, or a Chinese person or a Jew, or a Crippled person who ever had customers refuse to give the business money, because those people were the servers.
Never.
Period.

No person from Little Rock, Arkansas has ever successfully created a full-scale Star Destroyer.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Whenever you're proven wrong you spring off and say something completely tangential to the topic.

If you pay workers more than they contribute to the company, your company will go out of business, and you will pay those workers nothing. I continue to wait for you to address the point that your way to "end poverty" is a recipe for raising it dramatically through mass unemployment.

I never said anything wrong, nor have you ever proven me wrong.
I have proved YOU wrong if anything.

[Xelsis]

No person from Little Rock, Arkansas has ever successfully created a full-scale Star Destroyer.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Whenever you're proven wrong you spring off and say something completely tangential to the topic.

If you pay workers more than they contribute to the company, your company will go out of business, and you will pay those workers nothing. I continue to wait for you to address the point that your way to "end poverty" is a recipe for raising it dramatically through mass unemployment.

I never said anything wrong, nor have you ever proven me wrong.
I have proved YOU wrong if anything.

Very well then. Explain to me, good sir, how you can pay your workers more than they bring to the company in revenue, and not go out of business, leaving them unemployed.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

I never said anything wrong, nor have you ever proven me wrong.
I have proved YOU wrong if anything.

Very well then. Explain to me, good sir, how you can pay your workers more than they bring to the company in revenue, and not go out of business, leaving them unemployed.

First of all, you ask that question because you are saying that somehow (magically) the business would make less money if they did not discriminate, which is false, in fact it would earn more because more people would have money, and less people would be angry at the business.
I don't answer bullshit questions that operate on bullshit premises.

Secondly, if you want to go out of business, that's your problem, somebody will replace you.

[Xelsis]

Very well then. Explain to me, good sir, how you can pay your workers more than they bring to the company in revenue, and not go out of business, leaving them unemployed.

First of all, you ask that question because you are saying that somehow (magically) the business would make less money if they did not discriminate, which is false, in fact it would earn more.

Secondly, if you want to go out of business, that's your problem, somebody will replace you.

Really? Just my problem, not the problem of all the workers who have now lost their jobs?

The person who replaces me will also go out of business if they do the same thing as me-which you insist on-paying their workers more than they return in revenue.

The only way that the person who replaces me can keep their business alive is to pay the workers less-which, in your situation, would result in the government shutting down their business.

You've now created a situation in which you shut down all employers, and thus fire all employees.

Explain how that was supposed to combat poverty, again?

[Demetland]

First of all, you ask that question because you are saying that somehow (magically) the business would make less money if they did not discriminate, which is false, in fact it would earn more because more people would have money, and less people would be angry at the business.

Secondly, if you want to go out of business, that's your problem, somebody will replace you.

You are the one who said that you want to force businesses to hire more workers for more money regardless of whether this is a sensible decision or not.

Nobody will replace that business when you have created conditions that prevent anyone from making profit.

[Grand Britannia]

>Applebee's
>50 dollars

What the fuck are you ordering? the most I ever spent there was like 12 or 13 dollars.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

First of all, you ask that question because you are saying that somehow (magically) the business would make less money if they did not discriminate, which is false, in fact it would earn more.

Secondly, if you want to go out of business, that's your problem, somebody will replace you.

Really? Just my problem, not the problem of all the workers who have now lost their jobs?

The person who replaces me will also go out of business if they do the same thing as me-which you insist on-paying their workers more than they return in revenue.

The only way that the person who replaces me can keep their business alive is to pay the workers less-which, in your situation, would result in the government shutting down their business.

You've now created a situation in which you shut down all employers, and thus fire all employees.

Explain how that was supposed to combat poverty, again?

Shut the fuck up and pay attention.
NONE of what you say ever happens, never... shut the fuck up.
No its not the problem of people who you left jobless... they'll go and get a job with another company.
What happens when you don't discriminate in your hiring practices, is you have a larger customer base, more of society has money to spend IN your business, and less people are angry at the business world which leads to a stronger middle class.

Yes its our job to shut down ALL businesses causing our people to be needlessly poor.

You go to work, you get the job done, and you get paid.
That's how its our job to make it work.

Not listen to you bitch and moan.

[Savojarna]

So why don't the politicians focus more on Labor unions that have people paid more, and enforcing the laws against discrimination so that people can get jobs..
Instead of more taxes that cuts jobs and makes people even more poor ?

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

1. But you have a minimum of workers you need to hire. I don't exactly believe that you hire 25 people if the job could be done by 5 (nobody does). Therefore, if we mandate higher wages you don't just distribute your 250$ differently, you'll use more money to pay wages. Otherwise, you are a weird kind of businessman from the beginning if you employ five times as many people than you need just for the hell of it. Therefore, your "25 people on 10$ vs. 5 people on 50$" dichotomy doesn't exist in the first place.

2. I kind of agree there but shaking up is a good thing as well to avoid that certain minorities always stay poor. I'd concede that point though because it belongs to a somewhat different debate.

3. Where does the OP say that? Labour unions instead of "more taxes that cut jobs and makes people more poor" sounds like they agree with you, no? (I'm not a native speaker, maybe I missed something there?)

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

>Applebee's
>50 dollars

What the fuck are you ordering? the most I ever spent there was like 12 or 13 dollars.

Food.

[Xelsis]

Really? Just my problem, not the problem of all the workers who have now lost their jobs?

The person who replaces me will also go out of business if they do the same thing as me-which you insist on-paying their workers more than they return in revenue.

The only way that the person who replaces me can keep their business alive is to pay the workers less-which, in your situation, would result in the government shutting down their business.

You've now created a situation in which you shut down all employers, and thus fire all employees.

Explain how that was supposed to combat poverty, again?

Shut the fuck up and pay attention.
NONE of what you say ever happens, never... shut the fuck up.

No business ever goes out of business because it can't turn a profit? Interesting.

No its not the problem of people who you left jobless... they'll go and get a job with another company.

So, if it's not by problem if I leave them jobless, why, exactly is it my problem if I pay them less? They'll go and get a job with another company, won't they?

What happens when you don't discriminate in your hiring practices, is you have a larger customer base, more of society has money to spend IN your business, and less people are angry at the business world which leads to a stronger middle class.

1. We're talking about your jacked-up wages, not discrimination.
2. If not discriminating was that massively profitable, then those greedy capitalists who care only about money? They wouldn't discriminate.

Yes its our job to shut down ALL businesses causing our people to be needlessly poor.

Causing people to be needlessly poor by paying them money?

You go to work, you get the job done, and you get paid.
That's how its our job to make it work.

Except you just said it was your job to keep them from going to work because you shut down their business.

[Donut section]

1. Is there any biological differences between people?

If you want to feign that you're unable to understand the context difference between "biological identity" and "social equality", fine, but then don't expect anyone to acknowledge any credibility to your arguments anymore.

2. Equal at all

Blatant lie.

3. No soup for you

Oh such evil threats.

4. https://ourworldindata.org/taxation/

This does not prove your claim that I'm making the world worse.

1. Social equality now. Move them goalposts so you appear to have any credibility hey.
2. Irrefutable actually.
3. Threat?
4. Because paying more tax is better. I hear it's all the rage with the kids these days.

[Xelsis]

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

1. But you have a minimum of workers you need to hire. I don't exactly believe that you hire 25 people if the job could be done by 5 (nobody does). Therefore, if we mandate higher wages you don't just distribute your 250$ differently, you'll use more money to pay wages. Otherwise, you are a weird kind of businessman from the beginning if you employ five times as many people than you need just for the hell of it. Therefore, your "25 people on 10$ vs. 5 people on 50$" dichotomy doesn't exist in the first place.

The issue with this line of reasoning is the existence of automation. I could hire twenty-five people to work my Wal-Mart counters...or I could hire five, and replace the rest with automatic check-out machines.

2. I kind of agree there but shaking up is a good thing as well to avoid that certain minorities always stay poor. I'd concede that point though because it belongs to a somewhat different debate.

I'll say that enforcing anti-discrimination laws is the least problematic of the suggestions provided here-but supporting a quota system, as they do, is a terrible way to do it.

3. Where does the OP say that? Labour unions instead of "more taxes that cut jobs and makes people more poor" sounds like they agree with you, no? (I'm not a native speaker, maybe I missed something there?)

They seem to be opposing tax cuts-thus my question as to how cutting taxes (meaning the government takes less of your income) makes you more poor.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

1. The more you pay your workers, the less workers you can hire. I can fire 5 workers for $50 an hour and they can get all those fancy things, or I can hire 25 for $10 an hour. What's better, having 25 people on $10/hour, or 5 on $50 and 20 on $0?
2. How do anti-discrimination laws get anyone jobs? At best they just shake up who fills the slots.
3. By all means, explain how taking less money from people makes them "even more poor."

1. But you have a minimum of workers you need to hire. I don't exactly believe that you hire 25 people if the job could be done by 5 (nobody does). Therefore, if we mandate higher wages you don't just distribute your 250$ differently, you'll use more money to pay wages. Otherwise, you are a weird kind of businessman from the beginning if you employ five times as many people than you need just for the hell of it. Therefore, your "25 people on 10$ vs. 5 people on 50$" dichotomy doesn't exist in the first place.

2. I kind of agree there but shaking up is a good thing as well to avoid that certain minorities always stay poor. I'd concede that point though because it belongs to a somewhat different debate.

3. Where does the OP say that? Labour unions instead of "more taxes that cut jobs and makes people more poor" sounds like they agree with you, no? (I'm not a native speaker, maybe I missed something there?)

What he wants is for businesses to tell women, blacks, Hispanics, jews, Asians and disabled people that they're not qualified after graduating from college when there is no standard beyond that (legally) as to what makes a person qualified.
And pay them all minimum wage while he drives a Mercedes Benz.

[Xelsis]

1. But you have a minimum of workers you need to hire. I don't exactly believe that you hire 25 people if the job could be done by 5 (nobody does). Therefore, if we mandate higher wages you don't just distribute your 250$ differently, you'll use more money to pay wages. Otherwise, you are a weird kind of businessman from the beginning if you employ five times as many people than you need just for the hell of it. Therefore, your "25 people on 10$ vs. 5 people on 50$" dichotomy doesn't exist in the first place.

2. I kind of agree there but shaking up is a good thing as well to avoid that certain minorities always stay poor. I'd concede that point though because it belongs to a somewhat different debate.

3. Where does the OP say that? Labour unions instead of "more taxes that cut jobs and makes people more poor" sounds like they agree with you, no? (I'm not a native speaker, maybe I missed something there?)

What he wants is for businesses to tell women, blacks, Hispanics, jews, Asians and disabled people that they're not qualified after graduating from college when there is no standard beyond that (legally) as to what makes a person qualified.
And pay them all minimum wage while he drives a Mercedes Benz.

What I want is for businesses to hire the people who are most qualified for the job, regardless of race or sex. If a Hispanic woman is more qualified than the white man? She gets the job. If the white man is more qualified than the Hispanic woman? He gets the job. I don't actually believe in discriminating based on race, as you seem to.

What I also want is for a worker to have the right to choose what wage they work for, rather than using government to strip them of that right.

I will continue to await your refutation of my actual points, rather than your aggressive attacks against strawmen.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Shut the fuck up and pay attention.
NONE of what you say ever happens, never... shut the fuck up.

No business ever goes out of business because it can't turn a profit? Interesting.

No its not the problem of people who you left jobless... they'll go and get a job with another company.

So, if it's not by problem if I leave them jobless, why, exactly is it my problem if I pay them less? They'll go and get a job with another company, won't they?

What happens when you don't discriminate in your hiring practices, is you have a larger customer base, more of society has money to spend IN your business, and less people are angry at the business world which leads to a stronger middle class.

1. We're talking about your jacked-up wages, not discrimination.
2. If not discriminating was that massively profitable, then those greedy capitalists who care only about money? They wouldn't discriminate.

Yes its our job to shut down ALL businesses causing our people to be needlessly poor.

Causing people to be needlessly poor by paying them money?

You go to work, you get the job done, and you get paid.
That's how its our job to make it work.

Except you just said it was your job to keep them from going to work because you shut down their business.

yes I said that its our job to shut down businesses who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, and who discriminate against the public.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

What he wants is for businesses to tell women, blacks, Hispanics, jews, Asians and disabled people that they're not qualified after graduating from college when there is no standard beyond that (legally) as to what makes a person qualified.
And pay them all minimum wage while he drives a Mercedes Benz.

What I want is for businesses to hire the people who are most qualified for the job, regardless of race or sex. If a Hispanic woman is more qualified than the white man? She gets the job. If the white man is more qualified than the Hispanic woman? He gets the job. I don't actually believe in discriminating based on race, as you seem to.

What I also want is for a worker to have the right to choose what wage they work for, rather than using government to strip them of that right.

I will continue to await your refutation of my actual points, rather than your aggressive attacks against strawmen.

There is no such a thing as "most" qualified.
Qualified is Qualified.
That's it.
That's the Anti Discrimination policies.

UNLESS they PROVE themselves to not be qualified.

[Xelsis]

What I want is for businesses to hire the people who are most qualified for the job, regardless of race or sex. If a Hispanic woman is more qualified than the white man? She gets the job. If the white man is more qualified than the Hispanic woman? He gets the job. I don't actually believe in discriminating based on race, as you seem to.

What I also want is for a worker to have the right to choose what wage they work for, rather than using government to strip them of that right.

I will continue to await your refutation of my actual points, rather than your aggressive attacks against strawmen.

There is no such a thing as "most" qualified.
Qualified is Qualified.
That's it.
That's the Anti Discrimination policies.

You refused to answer the question earlier, so I will ask it again-you will assert that no one salesperson is more skilled than another, better at getting sales? No accountant is quicker at running the numbers? No construction worker stronger? No doctor smarter? No therapist kinder?

yes I said that its our job to shut down businesses who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, and who discriminate against the public.

So it is your job to force working people, against their will, into unemployment to satisfy your own personal opinion of how you think economics should be? That's despicable.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

There is no such a thing as "most" qualified.
Qualified is Qualified.
That's it.
That's the Anti Discrimination policies.

You refused to answer the question earlier, so I will ask it again-you will assert that no one salesperson is more skilled than another, better at getting sales? No accountant is quicker at running the numbers? No construction worker stronger? No doctor smarter? No therapist kinder?

yes I said that its our job to shut down businesses who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, and who discriminate against the public.

So it is your job to force working people, against their will, into unemployment to satisfy your own personal opinion of how you think economics should be? That's despicable.

I already answered that.
And the Answer is no.

In fact a person a with Asperger Syndrome who wasn't even dressed appropriately for white collar work, sold more Kitchen appliances than many of his Non-Autistic coworkers.

[Demetland]

There is no such a thing as "most" qualified.
Qualified is Qualified.
That's it.
That's the Anti Discrimination policies.

No, that isn't it. And that is NOT what anti discrimination policies are.

Anti discrimination policies are to do with things that aren't relevant. Take racial discrimination. It would be discriminatory to consistently choose white candidates over black candidates who are in all other respects equally qualified. It would NOT be discriminatory to consistently choose better qualified candidates over less qualified ones.

It's all very to well to say 'Qualified is Qualified' but it doesn't make it true. Especially when there are many applicants for each position.