Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

As a Swede, no, no you're not. Not even close.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Scooty... I'm willing to listen, but c'mon man, it looks disingenuous on the surface dude.

My "backhanded" comment stems from my thinking that, if he's successful in getting that exemption, then it'll be easier for these Union shops to work with private industries (ie, retail/restarunts/etc..) to encourage new unions, in the effort to keep overall labor costs down.

He's asking for "special snowflake" treatments.

You're aren't 'willing to listen' because you've already made up your mind, Whembly. Have you read LA's minimum wage law or the proposal from Mr. Hicks? If the answer is "no" (which I'm positive it is), then your claim of being willing to listen is bs, because you've already decided to not listen at all and instead assume the worst about the people you already think you disagree with.

You're not fooling anyone.

I read it...

Start here bro:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-hike-20150518-story.html#page=1



By 2020 it'll be 15$ per hour.

Unions should NOT be exempted. Doesn't matter if unions offer 'more benefits'... which makes labor costs higher. It's the Union's job to convince the workers that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

As a Swede, no, no you're not. Not even close.

That depends on what people mean by dangerously close. Any closer to socialism than what we have is what I consider too dangerous. As for what Europe has, well, that's too far gone to save.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

You're at least half right. We're not heading as much toward Capitalism as we are towards Oligarchy. Thanks "Citizens United!" As long as money is speech, corporations and the rich will continue to exert undue influence over the government and the economy.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

As a Swede, no, no you're not. Not even close.

That depends on what people mean by dangerously close. Any closer to socialism than what we have is what I consider too dangerous. As for what Europe has, well, that's too far gone to save.

That's...

Wow. I'm not even mad, that level of arrogance is impressive.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

As a Swede, no, no you're not. Not even close.

That depends on what people mean by dangerously close. Any closer to socialism than what we have is what I consider too dangerous. As for what Europe has, well, that's too far gone to save.

I think you have a distorted and alarmist sense of left and right wing politics both in the US and internationally. You sound like someone worried about finding Reds under the bed. The US isn't anywhere near a socialist state and its not disastrous to be socialist should it ever go that way, which I rather doubt it will.

 Eilif wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

You're at least half right. We're not heading as much toward Capitalism as we are towards Oligarchy. Thanks "Citizens United!" As long as money is speech, corporations and the rich will continue to exert undue influence over the government and the economy.

Citizens United really had nothing to do with that.

 Eilif wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

You're at least half right. We're not heading as much toward Capitalism as we are towards Oligarchy. Thanks "Citizens United!" As long as money is speech, corporations and the rich will continue to exert undue influence over the government and the economy.

Screw giving power to those who finance a governmen and its citizen!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you think the US is headed towards rampant Capitalism you are sorely mistaken. Rampant capitalism did once exist, we know exactly what it looks like. We're not even close to that, and actually trending dangerously towards socialism in the coming years.

You're at least half right. We're not heading as much toward Capitalism as we are towards Oligarchy. Thanks "Citizens United!" As long as money is speech, corporations and the rich will continue to exert undue influence over the government and the economy.

Screw giving power to those who finance a governmen and its citizen!

And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

So companies are killing citizens now? Huh?

A company is made of people. The big ones gather the best who then lead others to excellence. Sure, you can have a state without companies. Enjoy no welfare, no insurances, a huge black market for everything etc. Law of the jungle applies. The big, mean, evil companies do more for the well-being of any state than any politican will ever do.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

bingo!

once labour passes the tipping point, there will be no going back once the start up costs to automate have been justified.

mmmm free market, its delicious, you cannot beat it!

What happens when no one is able to afford all those widgets made by automated factories because they have all been made unemployed?

the same thing that happened when other industries like farming, cars, ect were automated.

Urbanization and automation of agriculture put a huge amount of people out of work, but was actually better for everyone in the long run and we got cheaper, more abundant food, and did lead to an improvement in overall quality of life as well as the creation of better jobs for skilled labourers.

And your theory is that only the people working at a factory are buying its products, when this is simply not the case.

after factory x automates and cuts its staff by 50%, its customers dont magically disappear, the 50% that got cut have to find new jobs is all, and often the goods become cheaper since its easier/cheaper to emloy 50% of the people and still produce the same amount or more of the goods. SO business improves in most automation case studies.

In addition he unskilled job of menial labour is replaced by a machine, and the skilled job of maintaining that machine now exists.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

So companies are killing citizens now? Huh?

A company is made of people. The big ones gather the best who then lead others to excellence. Sure, you can have a state without companies. Enjoy no welfare, no insurances, a huge black market for everything etc. Law of the jungle applies. The big, mean, evil companies do more for the well-being of any state than any politican will ever do.

Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do. Politicians, in my opinion, exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

So companies are killing citizens now? Huh?

A company is made of people. The big ones gather the best who then lead others to excellence. Sure, you can have a state without companies. Enjoy no welfare, no insurances, a huge black market for everything etc. Law of the jungle applies. The big, mean, evil companies do more for the well-being of any state than any politican will ever do.

Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do. Politicians, in my opinion, exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

More misery and suffering? Really?

When have companies ever caused war, or famine, or mass genocide, or any other horrible thing? Politicians are responsible for all those things.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

So companies are killing citizens now? Huh?

A company is made of people. The big ones gather the best who then lead others to excellence. Sure, you can have a state without companies. Enjoy no welfare, no insurances, a huge black market for everything etc. Law of the jungle applies. The big, mean, evil companies do more for the well-being of any state than any politican will ever do.

Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do. Politicians, in my opinion, exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

More misery and suffering? Really?

When have companies ever caused war, or famine, or mass genocide, or any other horrible thing? Politicians are responsible for all those things.

Have you looked at Africa recently?

Africa's misery is caused by vicious warlords, tribal culture, and general lack of ability to produce enough food for its population.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When have companies ever caused war, or famine, or mass genocide, or any other horrible thing? Politicians are responsible for all those things.

Dude, you're not familiar with the Warzone or Shadowrun backgrounds, are you?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Africa's misery is caused by vicious warlords, tribal culture, and general lack of ability to produce enough food for its population.

And why can't they produce enough food for their population?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Africa's misery is caused by vicious warlords, tribal culture, and general lack of ability to produce enough food for its population.

And why can't they produce enough food for their population?

I've always wondered that too... they ought to be the breadbasket of the frick'n world.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Africa's misery is caused by vicious warlords, tribal culture, and general lack of ability to produce enough food for its population.

And why can't they produce enough food for their population?

Because Africa is severely underdeveloped, and it lacks fertile farmland in general. Cleared rainforest is terrible for growing crops. It remains underdeveloped because tribal culture prevents them from developing socially, the conflict stifles any major development.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And who gives companies their power? Consumers. People can survive without companies, but companies can't survive without people.

So companies are killing citizens now? Huh?

A company is made of people. The big ones gather the best who then lead others to excellence. Sure, you can have a state without companies. Enjoy no welfare, no insurances, a huge black market for everything etc. Law of the jungle applies. The big, mean, evil companies do more for the well-being of any state than any politican will ever do.

Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do. Politicians, in my opinion, exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

More misery and suffering? Really?

When have companies ever caused war, or famine, or mass genocide, or any other horrible thing? Politicians are responsible for all those things.

Clearly someone has never heard of the Dutch East India Trading Company or United Fruit...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Africa's misery is caused by vicious warlords, tribal culture, and general lack of ability to produce enough food for its population.

And why can't they produce enough food for their population?

Because Africa is severely underdeveloped, and it lacks fertile farmland in general. Cleared rainforest is terrible for growing crops. It remains underdeveloped because tribal culture prevents them from developing socially, the conflict stifles any major development.

Or because the EU dumps excess food produced as a result of the current CAP in Africa for less than it costs local farmers to produce their own food, driving them out of business. But I guess that's just my inner white-guilt communist talking.

Sure,the EU dumps cheap food. Now tell me, is the EU a company or a political organization?

Political organization.

Why does the CAP exist in the first place?

So you are blaming people who produce food in the EU and not the people who are actually shipping it to Africa where it causes problems?

Yes, because without the demands of European agriculture the interest behind the CAP would not exist.

We're going off topic though, so I'll just agree to disagree.

The fact remains the politicians are the ones sending the food to Africa.

Bran Dawri wrote:


Even so, I disagree with the assertion that difficulty is the only yardstick to be used to determine what deserves a good wage. Hard work, whether it's shovelling manure or brainsweat should be rewarded with (at least) being able to pay your bills.

I agree with you on this point... That is why with some of the examples that I used, I added the caveat that the person would effectively be a "button pusher" and have no deep understanding of what's really being done, and why.

My job in the army took a year of training. Not because swapping out a computer is hard, or soldering a circuit board is difficult. It was training the ability to think on the feet, see a problem ask, "Why is this doing that?" and be able to actually fix the problem instead of pushing it off on someone else.

I think that there are some jobs out there that pay decently not because they are "hard" per se, such as shovelling something, but because there is an inherent risk involved in that trade. To follow that shovelling "something", I have read often that miners make good money. Is this more because the "shoveling" is hard, or because there's a significant danger of the mine shaft collapsing?

 whembly wrote:
I read it...

Start here bro:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-hike-20150518-story.html#page=1



By 2020 it'll be 15$ per hour.

Unions should NOT be exempted. Doesn't matter if unions offer 'more benefits'... which makes labor costs higher. It's the Union's job to convince the workers that.

Thanks Whembly, but I already read that and looked at your pretty chart and it still didn't answer the question of how the new law interact with existing collectively bargained wage packages (which cannot just be thrown out willy nilly because, you know, they're legally binding contracts) and what exactly the proposal entails. By the way, this kind of 'exemption' has already been done in other cities that have increased the minimum wage.

There is no valid reason to oppose a person from engaging in collective bargaining what they believe to be a fair wage rate with their employer, unless you don't believe that those people should have that right, which brings us back to my previous point: you aren't 'willing to listen' because you've already made up your mind. What I think a lot of it is people are afraid that allowing workers to organize is no good. McDonald's isn't happy about paying their workers more, so let them organize and decide what a fair wage rate is to save their payroll or pay them what the local government thinks they are worth.


Finally, I love it when you get prickly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


In my opinion, Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do and politicians exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

I've altered the quote a bit, leaving it at this properly reflects the truth as the logical fallacy has already been pointed out above and neither do I want to get more off-topic...although I wonder if it truly is off-topic.

Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

tl;dr: As long as politicians want to push agendas and enforce them upon the economy, people will suffer. Worse than before. But as long as people want to be lied to, they deserve no better.

That post is hilarious.