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.

You make use of your D4s on multiple choice questions too?

Grey Templar wrote:How would you like it if there was a mandated 10% taken out of your paycheck to fund the local food bank/homeless shelter/orphanage/etc... You have no say where that money goes. Maybe you want it to go to the local homeless shelter, but instead it gets shuffled out of state where someone in a government office decided the need is greater.

Do you mean like a tithe?

Frazzled wrote:Thats because you just wouldn't understand the personal experience of my people, and what we've been through.

As a white male, age 18-35 and born into an upper-middle-class family of european descent in one of the best places on Earth, I suspect that I would understand the personal experience of "your people" quite well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They don't have to clean the tables 20% faster. They could even be slightly slower compared to what they were with more people on staff.

but if the reduction in speed is acceptable compared to the savings in salary then they will do it.


You are assuming the employer will make no compromise in expectations. This is nonsensical.

Nonsensical? Minimum duties is a core concept in business process planning. I mean, I don't want to drop an expertise claim in here, but I do this for a living, and a core concept in mapping a business process is to recognise the stuff you simply can't do without. The idea that a restaurant will avoid paying a higher minimum wage by leaving tables uncleaned or leaving orders untaken is just nonsense.

And, once again, look at the rest of the developed world, please. We have lots of restaurants despite having much higher minimum wages. Your argument that increasing the US minimum wage will drive down employment just doesn't work from a simple look at the real world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the notion or implied threat to fire someone has a tendency to pick up one production. One person = clean 20 tables in under 20 min can happen

Studies have shown that to be true, but only over the short term. Long term productivity reverts to the norm, and in some cases even drops back below the original point (either through the best employees leaving the hostile environment for a less stressful job or burn out).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but taking care of the poor is the individual responsibility. Not the government.

Yeah, people used to say that lot. Lots of babies died of malnutrition and kids worked in factories. So we changed things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The rich have to be given the choice between helping those less fortunate then themselves, or not helping. You can't and shouldn't force charity.

You don't force charity, that's true. Instead you just accept that charity is all well and good, but it simply isn't enough to provide for all the people who desperately need help. So, provided your interest is primarily with helping those who need help and not some strange, abstract notion of what is and isn't charity, you build a welfare system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex.

Market complexities make analysis an inexact science, but in terms of minimum wage, it's an inexact science with many distinct events that can be studied (ie the minimum wage has been increased many time, by many different amounts, and each time you can look in detail at the effect on unskilled unemployment, on youth unemployment etc). As a result, all that maths can be tested and refined, to the point where we can say with some confidence what the effect of an increase will be.

To put it simply, we've been saying 'well we raised minimum wage by $1 last year, and unemployment held steady in an average growth economy, so let's see what happens if we increase it by another $0.50...'

And yeah, that meant in Australia we got over $16 per hour before it was felt it'd start materially impacting on unemployment. Which means the US could almost certainly increase their rate to $11 or $12 at a minimum without impacting unemployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
This is Dakka OT. We just had a guy post sincerely advocating a Judge Dredd totalitarian state.

At this point, I can make zero assumptions for sarcasm, and have to error on the side of flying rodent gak insane.

Almost everytime I've assumed sarcasm on dakka I've been wrong.

Hunger and malnutrition is a great exmple of how "the individuals should handle charity" just doesn't work.

We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point, then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

 d-usa wrote:
Hunger and malnutrition is a great exmple of how "the individuals should handle charity" just doesn't work.

We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point, then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

I was doing some artwork today, and had the Daily Show on in the background. I wasn't paying full attention, but something was said about cutting funding for food stamps. Of course, if the starving children die of malnutrition, you no longer have any starving children to worry about.

SOLVING THE PROBLEM! 'MURICA!

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

He doesn't have the self-awareness to recognize that he's an avatar of the point you were making.

 d-usa wrote:
You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

You monster.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

You monster.

So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

 d-usa wrote:
So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

Sure, by that standard, but not a hypocritical one. I'm not calling on people to give up more of their money.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

And my question is, why aren't you doing something about it? You claim to care, but you also buy, we'll assume, assault squads, or DVDs, or video games, or cable television service. Is it a sliding scale? Are hungry children worth more than a latte from Starbucks, but not worth more than a new miniature army? At some point, clearly, you made the decision that it - or something like it - outweighed hungry children.

You have the means to make an actual difference, if you so chose, but instead you seem content to use the issue as a political football.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

Sure, by that standard, but not a hypocritical one. I'm not calling on people to give up more of their money.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

And my question is, why aren't you doing something about it? You claim to care, but you also buy, we'll assume, assault squads, or DVDs, or video games, or cable television service. You have the means to make an actual difference, if you so chose, but instead you seem content to use the issue as a political football.

Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

 Seaward wrote:
It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

Well, yeah, that's the point. People make the determination to favour their own happiness over helping hungry children. They recognise that sure, hungry children need to be helped, but I really want to expand my Space Wolves or whatever... and someone else can surely help that starving kid.

It's why when we relied on private charity to ease the suffering of the poor we got lots of child malnutrition and people dying from exposure.

As a society we looked at that system, and decided all those kids with malnutrition and people dying of exposure was not very acceptable. And so we built a system that makes helping mandatory.

And now lots of people complain that because its mandatory it isn't charity, and that they want to give, but it should be their choice how much they want to give. To which I can respond 'I don't give a flying feth about inane moral arguments, the people who needed food and shelter were not getting it under the old system, and now they are, and so returning to the old system would be stupid.'

 d-usa wrote:
Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

I'm sorry, what? "It doesn't work?" You're telling me you couldn't feed a couple kids with your excess income? I bet you could. Instead, though, you've chosen to throw up your hands and wait on policy - while continuing to purchase luxury goods. Tsk, tsk.

You don't want to take a little from everyone, by the way. You want to take a little from you, and a lot from me.

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

I'm sorry, what? "It doesn't work?" You're telling me you couldn't feed a couple kids with your excess income? I bet you could. Instead, though, you've chosen to throw up your hands and wait on policy - while continuing to purchase luxury goods. Tsk, tsk.

You don't want to take a little from everyone, by the way. You want to take a little from you, and a lot from me.

Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

God, no. Junior officers don't get rich.

Also, "earned," not "gained."

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

God, no. Junior officers don't get rich.

Also, "earned," not "gained."

No, I think "gained" is proper. Do you have a college education? How'd you pay for that? Did you work 3 minimum wage jobs, or did the government subsidize it for you?

EDIT: Were you just some street urchin that decided to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and observe journeymen at work, and learned a trade by osmosis? Or did you use an education, paid for with public funds, to turn that into a well-paying career?

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, I think "gained" is proper. Do you have a college education? How'd you pay for that? Did you work 3 minimum wage jobs, or did the government subsidize it for you?

I do indeed have a college education. It's a requisite, y'see.

And it was paid for by a scholarship and a job (until I lost the scholarship, and the job wasn't minimum wage), then I took out loans for the last couple semesters.

In retrospect? Not the way to do it, at all. Should've just gone to the Academy. Could've gotten in, just didn't want to go.

What scholarship? What job?

EDIT: What Academy, even? (sorry, I'm not familiar with even what institution you're implying here.)

 azazel the cat wrote:
What scholarship? What job?

Murray Scholarship. And I worked nights as a manager at a hotel.

EDIT: What Academy, even? (sorry, I'm not familiar with even what institution you're implying here.)

Naval Academy.

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this.

Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

 d-usa wrote:
Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

You've never had a problem with it.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

You've never had a problem with it.

Well, I try to keep my crazy at an 8. But sometimes I turn it up to 11 for comedic effect!

Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Naval Academy means you accepted money from the government, which was derived from taxes. Anyone who has taken money from the public sector has no right to claim that people shouldn't receive money from the public. You are the embodiment of the "I've got mine already so screw you" mentality, which is often coupled with the painfully erroneous mistake of thinking that "capitalized on an opportunity" is the same as "earned that"; which is likely held in mind because it shields you from the concept that the only thing separating you from the working poor is a little luck, for good or bad. It's far more comforting to believe that you're better than them; that you're more special than they are. That way, you might never have to face the notion that whatever misfortunate (or lack of good fortune) has happened to someone else, could have or still could happen to you.

Believe it or not, we actually have moderately similar circumstances. The difference is that I have the good sense to recognize that a little luck and a priviliged upbringing was every bit as much a contributing factor to success as was any skill or other characteristic unique to me. As such, I like to think I have a sense of duty to society to help bolster the welfare state, simply because it could have been me on the other end of that bargain. Sometimes we get pocket aces, and sometimes we get 2-7. I'd just as soon prefer to see everyone fall into the 7-Q range, rather than the full 2-ace spread.


And I'm not sure what a Murray Scholarship is exactly, that's a pretty common name.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Some people will never see:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Naval Academy means you accepted money from the government, which was derived from taxes. Anyone who has taken money from the public sector has no right to claim that people shouldn't receive money from the public. You are the embodiment of the "I've got mine already so screw you" mentality, which is often coupled with the painfully erroneous mistake of thinking that "capitalized on an opportunity" is the same as "earned that"; which is likely held in mind because it shields you from the concept that the only thing separating you from the working poor is a little luck, for good or bad. It's far more comforting to believe that you're better than them; that you're more special than they are. That way, you might never have to face the notion that whatever misfortunate (or lack of good fortune) has happened to someone else, could have or still could happen to you.

I said I should've gone to the Academy, not that I did. If I had it to do over again, I would've taken the Academy route, rather than standard college followed by OCS.

Also, I find it hilarious that you're comparing military service with welfare programs. If I had gone to the Academy, it's not simply a matter of them paying for your degree and then letting you do what you want with it. You owe them time. Come up with a program like that for "social" programs, I'll be all for it.

Flight school, incidentally, bumps the commitment from four years to eight. If the argument is that I am where I am today because of the Navy and a college degree, you're absolutely right. The suggestion it wasn't earned is absolutely wrong.

And I'm not sure what a Murray Scholarship is exactly, that's a pretty common name.

It's a merit scholarship from William and Mary.

So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

 d-usa wrote:
So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

Sure is! And they hand it out to anybody who needs it in order to attend college.

Wait, no. It's ridiculously selective and extraordinarily limited in scope. Again, if you want to do a public welfare program with the same strictures, I'm all for it.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

Sure is! And they hand it out to anybody who needs it in order to attend college.

Wait, no. It's ridiculously selective and extraordinarily limited in scope. Again, if you want to do a public welfare program with the same strictures, I'm all for it.

So please, pray tell, how do you attach a "you earned the opportunity to not have your kids sleep hungry" clause to food stamps? Or a "You are high school graduate that can't afford college so you are working minimum wage, but tell us what makes you so much better than anybody else that you should get enough wage to not have to work 74 hours a week" clause to wages?

Point being is that you have absolutely zero resistance to taking my money if you feel that you have done something to earn it, even if I don't think that you deserve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I shall call you "The Island":

 d-usa wrote:
So please, pray tell, how do you attach a "you earned the opportunity to not have your kids sleep hungry" clause to food stamps?

Dunno. Oblige the adult recipients to do a little national service, maybe.

Or a "You are high school graduate that can't afford college so you are working minimum wage, but tell us what makes you so much better than anybody else that you should get enough wage to not have to work 74 hours a week" clause to wages?

That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

Point being is that you have absolutely zero resistance to taking my money if you feel that you have done something to earn it, even if I don't think that you deserve it.

You don't think members of the military have a right to get paid? Or just that they shouldn't be entitled to programs like the GI Bill?

I'm going to love this response, I can tell.