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

[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.

Its the business owner's fault for treating people like shit, not my problem that the business owner treats people like shit.

[Demetland]

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.

You do realise that proves you wrong, right?

[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.

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.

That's from a certain kind of business owner's perspective which has no place being considered in our laws.

[Savojarna]

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.

Why is Wal-Mart not doing this? Because they see a disadvantage in it. Even if it happens, we as worker's advocates should be happy less people have to do a stupid cashier job and make it possible to survive unemployed. Cutting work hours would also be in order, by the way - it's how we coped with the last massive automation (by cutting hours from 10-12h a day do around 8 - why not cut the definition of "full time" to, say, 6h given that according to research, many people are not being productive for around 3h of their work time?)

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.

2. I oppose quotas as well, so let's just drop this point for now. Also, I'm from continental Europe where the only remotely relevant case of AA are women's quotas, and even those just occasionally, so I don't have near enough knowledge.

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.

Unless my English fails me (please tell me if it does) I can't see where this is being said...

[Xelsis]

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?



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.

Its the business owner's fault for treating people like shit, not my problem that the business owner treats people like shit.

So you'll blame the business owner for your actions in forcible firing people who want a job.

And you'll say they are the one who treats them badly? Those people chose to work for that company, for that wage, voluntarily, and the owner provided the work. You, on the other hand, are deciding that those workers cannot have that job, forcing them out of it and into further poverty for your own arbitrary reasons.

You ought to think a moment about who the real villain is here.

[Xelsis]

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.

Why is Wal-Mart not doing this? Because they see a disadvantage in it. Even if it happens, we as worker's advocates should be happy less people have to do a stupid cashier job and make it possible to survive unemployed. Cutting work hours would also be in order, by the way - it's how we coped with the last massive automation (by cutting hours from 10-12h a day do around 8 - why not cut the definition of "full time" to, say, 6h given that according to research, many people are not being productive for around 3h of their work time?)

They are also not doing it because wages remain low enough that they can afford not to. In the situation suggested, where minimum wages are spiked dramatically, they will be forced to curtail the labor force one way or another, and automated machines are the best way to do that-even now, you see their growth.

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.

Unless my English fails me (please tell me if it does) I can't see where this is being said...

Actually, you are right and I am wrong on this. It seems I mixed up the word order of "cuts", you are correct. My apologies there.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Its the business owner's fault for treating people like shit, not my problem that the business owner treats people like shit.

So you'll blame the business owner for your actions in forcible firing people who want a job.

And you'll say they are the one who treats them badly? Those people chose to work for that company, for that wage, voluntarily, and the owner provided the work. You, on the other hand, are deciding that those workers cannot have that job, forcing them out of it and into further poverty for your own arbitrary reasons.

You ought to think a moment about who the real villain is here.

yes I blame the business owner for his failures to pay people.
They also didn't choose slave wages.
Slave wages was all that was offered to them.

[Savojarna]

Its the business owner's fault for treating people like shit, not my problem that the business owner treats people like shit.

So you'll blame the business owner for your actions in forcible firing people who want a job.

And you'll say they are the one who treats them badly? Those people chose to work for that company, for that wage, voluntarily, and the owner provided the work. You, on the other hand, are deciding that those workers cannot have that job, forcing them out of it and into further poverty for your own arbitrary reasons.

You ought to think a moment about who the real villain is here.

Is it a voluntary decision if the alternative is poverty? (which it is because A) US welfare is, by my (admittedly flawed) knowledge, way below first world standards and B) even decent welfare systems force you to take up almost every offer in order not to lose your benefits and C) you tend not to get a better offer in the first place, because businesses care more about profit than about paying nicely. Which is fine, but then it's the union's job (as a representative of workers) to counter-balance that. If you now bring up "competition for workers means businesses will make better offers though", that may hold true for high posts or scarce workers, where you want to have a certain (type of) individual, but not to low level jobs which can be done by pretty much everyone.

[Xelsis]

So you'll blame the business owner for your actions in forcible firing people who want a job.

And you'll say they are the one who treats them badly? Those people chose to work for that company, for that wage, voluntarily, and the owner provided the work. You, on the other hand, are deciding that those workers cannot have that job, forcing them out of it and into further poverty for your own arbitrary reasons.

You ought to think a moment about who the real villain is here.

yes I blame the business owner for his failures to pay people.
They also didn't choose slave wages.
Slave wages was all that was offered to them.

Yet they accepted them. Note above that you claimed that if they lose their jobs, they will find another job at another company, yes? With that assumption, with the option of this job or one at the other company, they voluntarily selected this one.

You have two contradicting assertions here. Either they could get jobs at another company if fired, and therefore they had a choice, or they did not have a choice-in which case their unemployment would be permanent, and you only enhance their poverty.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

yes I blame the business owner for his failures to pay people.
They also didn't choose slave wages.
Slave wages was all that was offered to them.

Yet they accepted them. Note above that you claimed that if they lose their jobs, they will find another job at another company, yes? With that assumption, with the option of this job or one at the other company, they voluntarily selected this one.

You have two contradicting assertions here. Either they could get jobs at another company if fired, and therefore they had a choice, or they did not have a choice-in which case their unemployment would be permanent, and you only enhance their poverty.

They accepted them or else what ?
Or else you wont hire them right ?
That's not volunteering, that's enslavement and intimidation, and causing poverty.

[Savojarna]

They are also not doing it because wages remain low enough that they can afford not to. In the situation suggested, where minimum wages are spiked dramatically, they will be forced to curtail the labor force one way or another, and automated machines are the best way to do that-even now, you see their growth.

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

[Xelsis]

So you'll blame the business owner for your actions in forcible firing people who want a job.

And you'll say they are the one who treats them badly? Those people chose to work for that company, for that wage, voluntarily, and the owner provided the work. You, on the other hand, are deciding that those workers cannot have that job, forcing them out of it and into further poverty for your own arbitrary reasons.

You ought to think a moment about who the real villain is here.

Is it a voluntary decision if the alternative is poverty? (which it is because A) US welfare is, by my (admittedly flawed) knowledge, way below first world standards and B) even decent welfare systems force you to take up almost every offer in order not to lose your benefits and C) you tend not to get a better offer in the first place, because businesses care more about profit than about paying nicely. Which is fine, but then it's the union's job (as a representative of workers) to counter-balance that. If you now bring up "competition for workers means businesses will make better offers though", that may hold true for high posts or scarce workers, where you want to have a certain (type of) individual, but not to low level jobs which can be done by pretty much everyone.

Certainly it is. Every choice has some sort of alternative to it. It is a voluntary decision to diet even if the alternative is obesity and health issues (and a voluntary choice that many do not take). They had the opportunity to accept or reject the offer, and to seek elsewhere for other jobs-and ultimately decided to select this one, which they may (in most cases barring contracts) leave whenever they wish.

As for competition leading to better offers-it is true that for no-skill jobs, you'll find less competition, because, as you say, everyone can do them. The impetus, then, is for the worker to acquire or develop skills to compete for those more lucrative jobs, remaining skilless in a high-skilled economy will get you near-nowhere.

Fixing the education system is, of course, an important step in making that easier.

[Demetland]

They accepted them or else what ?
Or else you wont hire them right ?
That's not volunteering, that's enslavement and intimidation, and causing poverty.

What? You can't hire someone who doesn't want to be hired. By definition.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

They are also not doing it because wages remain low enough that they can afford not to. In the situation suggested, where minimum wages are spiked dramatically, they will be forced to curtail the labor force one way or another, and automated machines are the best way to do that-even now, you see their growth.

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

Wal-Mart doesn't have to cut ANY jobs at all.
They do that because of the Executives GREED.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

They accepted them or else what ?
Or else you wont hire them right ?
That's not volunteering, that's enslavement and intimidation, and causing poverty.

What? You can't hire someone who doesn't want to be hired. By definition.

That's the stupidest statement I ever heard.
If he didn't want to be hired, he wouldn't have applied.

[Xelsis]

Yet they accepted them. Note above that you claimed that if they lose their jobs, they will find another job at another company, yes? With that assumption, with the option of this job or one at the other company, they voluntarily selected this one.

You have two contradicting assertions here. Either they could get jobs at another company if fired, and therefore they had a choice, or they did not have a choice-in which case their unemployment would be permanent, and you only enhance their poverty.

They accepted them or else what ?
Or else you wont hire them right ?
That's not volunteering, that's enslavement and intimidation, and causing poverty.

You're kidding me, right? It is slavery to force someone to work-with the alternative being them not working?

No, it's slavery to make someone work whether they want to or not, with the alternative being that they work anyway, while being whipped for it.

Providing someone an offer that they can accept or reject is the opposite of slavery.

Remember, to, that you are the one advocating firing these people.

They are also not doing it because wages remain low enough that they can afford not to. In the situation suggested, where minimum wages are spiked dramatically, they will be forced to curtail the labor force one way or another, and automated machines are the best way to do that-even now, you see their growth.

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Enlarged for emphasis.

"Somehow" doesn't cut it. It would be great if we "somehow" do a lot of things-but this is the real world, which means if you want something, you need a plan to get there.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

Before I respond-are these mandatory hours of free time? Are you being forced to take them?

[Xelsis]

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

Wal-Mart doesn't have to cut ANY jobs at all.
They do that because of the Executives GREED.

Oh, they are greedy now? Which means they want to make the most amount of money, yes? Which means that-since not discriminating is massively profitable, as you said earlier, that they will never discriminate, and anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary, yes?

[Demetland]

What? You can't hire someone who doesn't want to be hired. By definition.

That's the stupidest statement I ever heard.
If he didn't want to be hired, he wouldn't have applied.

Stupid, perhaps. But it's true.

Unlike what you keep saying, which is BOTH stupid and wrong.

Either people have no choice but to work for one company, or they can choose which company to work for.
You can't have it both ways.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

They accepted them or else what ?
Or else you wont hire them right ?
That's not volunteering, that's enslavement and intimidation, and causing poverty.

You're kidding me, right? It is slavery to force someone to work-with the alternative being them not working?

No, it's slavery to make someone work whether they want to or not, with the alternative being that they work anyway, while being whipped for it.

Providing someone an offer that they can accept or reject is the opposite of slavery.

Remember, to, that you are the one advocating firing these people.

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Enlarged for emphasis.

"Somehow" doesn't cut it. It would be great if we "somehow" do a lot of things-but this is the real world, which means if you want something, you need a plan to get there.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

Before I respond-are these mandatory hours of free time? Are you being forced to take them?

yes its slavery when you intimidate people into taking a job that isn't paying them enough to live middle class on.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

That's the stupidest statement I ever heard.
If he didn't want to be hired, he wouldn't have applied.

Stupid, perhaps. But it's true.

Unlike what you keep saying, which is BOTH stupid and wrong.

Either people have no choice but to work for one company, or they can choose which company to work for.
You can't have it both ways.

Its not my job to validate competition between two businesses.
Its my job to force both businesses in competition for resources and employees and customers, to obey my laws.

[Xelsis]

yes its slavery when you intimidate people into taking a job that isn't paying them enough to live middle class on.

The middle class is called the middle class for a reason. It is above some, and below others. There is no means to make everybody "middle class" without a fully Communist system (which ultimately evolves classes of their own.) Some people will be paid more than others. A doctor is more valuable to society than a cashier. An entertainer or inventor is valued more heavily than a sewage worker. Such is how a diverse and free society operates.

This idea that they are "intimidated" into taking jobs is silly. You seem to think that when you are unemployed, you do not even need to send out resumes or look for a job, because all the companies are sending jack-booted thugs to press you into taking their job.

Stupid, perhaps. But it's true.

Unlike what you keep saying, which is BOTH stupid and wrong.

Either people have no choice but to work for one company, or they can choose which company to work for.
You can't have it both ways.

Its not my job to validate competition between two businesses.
Its my job to force both businesses in competition for resources and employees and customers, to obey my laws.

And your laws are terrible laws. Regardless of your intention, you're causing mass unemployment and poverty on your own whims-it is despotic and destructive. Your laws would ruin the lives you purport to care for.

[Savojarna]

Is it a voluntary decision if the alternative is poverty? (which it is because A) US welfare is, by my (admittedly flawed) knowledge, way below first world standards and B) even decent welfare systems force you to take up almost every offer in order not to lose your benefits and C) you tend not to get a better offer in the first place, because businesses care more about profit than about paying nicely. Which is fine, but then it's the union's job (as a representative of workers) to counter-balance that. If you now bring up "competition for workers means businesses will make better offers though", that may hold true for high posts or scarce workers, where you want to have a certain (type of) individual, but not to low level jobs which can be done by pretty much everyone.

Certainly it is. Every choice has some sort of alternative to it. It is a voluntary decision to diet even if the alternative is obesity and health issues (and a voluntary choice that many do not take). They had the opportunity to accept or reject the offer, and to seek elsewhere for other jobs-and ultimately decided to select this one, which they may (in most cases barring contracts) leave whenever they wish.

As for competition leading to better offers-it is true that for no-skill jobs, you'll find less competition, because, as you say, everyone can do them. The impetus, then, is for the worker to acquire or develop skills to compete for those more lucrative jobs, remaining skilless in a high-skilled economy will get you near-nowhere.

Fixing the education system is, of course, an important step in making that easier.

But under your system of my wage keeping me barely alive, how exactly will I get time and money to acquire these skills? This is why higher minimum wages would be needed in order to make that system work. Under the status quo, you tell me "you could acquire skills and improve!", but I don't actually get the chance to do so. It's as if you made me do a bike race on an old rusty city bike against someone on a new high-end race bike and tell me "you could have trained for it!".

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

if you want to see mass unemployment, Texas is loaded with it.
While New York is sitting on more of a surplus than the richest European nation.

[Demetland]

Stupid, perhaps. But it's true.

Unlike what you keep saying, which is BOTH stupid and wrong.

Either people have no choice but to work for one company, or they can choose which company to work for.
You can't have it both ways.

Its not my job to validate competition between two businesses.
Its my job to force both businesses in competition for resources and employees and customers, to obey my laws.

So they are in competition for employees? When there's near full employment, that's true. But businesses don't need to compete so much for employees when there is considerable unemployment. As I said already, you cannot have it both ways. They can't simultaneously be able to hire whomever they want and be in competition for employees.

Your laws are completely imbecilic.

[Big Jim P]

$500 yearly per gym? What the fuck? Mine costs less than half of that.

Mine's about 1/4.

Mine is called "working for a living" and they actually pay ME.