Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 11:58 In article <YIqdnVejL9AsT8XYRVnytw(a)pipex.net>, usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fc11bd2984185bf989af4(a)news.individual.net... > > <nsadnUzBav053sjYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > > > > > I dont agree. However, if that is the case then no minimum wage means no > > > one > > > has worth. > > > > BS. The worth is decided by what one is willing to pay for the > > services rendered. If it's worth zero, the service isn't very > > important, eh? Why should it get done. If it's worth $5 an hour > > and someone is willing to do the service for $5 an hour it's worth > > *exactly* $5 per hour. Minimum wage means that the government > > decrees that there are no jobs worth less. Perhaps there are. > > Circular argument. No, it's not. It's called "capitalism". You have a widget I want more than $$ and you want $$ more than what I want. We come to an agreement on how many $$ the widget is worth. We're both happy. Substitute "labor" for "widget" and it's *exactly* the same. Price fixing is anti-capitalistic. > If the minimum wage is $5 an hour then jobs that are > worth less wont get done. It is the same as if there is no minimum wage. Why > should jobs which pay less than $5 an hour get done? Why is there an artificial limit on what jobs get done? > > What you are saying is there are jobs which are worth so little people > should still do them but not be paid a reasonable amount for it. You don't read well, eh? I'll slow down... If someone is offering a job for $4 and someone is willing to do a job for $4 it is *worth* $4, no more no less. At $5 the person offering the job may decide that it's not worth doing and the person who was willing for $4 no makes $0. What is "reasonable"? Who determines "reasonable"? You? You lefties sure like to control others, eh? > > > Surely, your argument is that a persons "worth" is what they are being > > > paid? > > Kinda the definition of "worth" isn't it? > > Well a minimum wage keeps peoples worth up as it is saying no one is worth > _less_ than $5 an hour. You seem to say some people should be. If they're willing to work for $1 and someone is willing to hire them for $1, that's the _exactly_ the worth of their effort. > With or without a minimum wage people are free to get better paid jobs. With > a minimum wage people desparate for work are protected from over > exploitation. Spoken like a good little party member. > > > That being minimum wage is no different from it being any other poorly > > > paid > > > wage. If someone is affronted by being told they are worth £5.15 an > > > hour, > > > they can get a different job. > > > > Exactly. > > So what is wrong with the minimum wage? The same thing that's wrong with any price fixing. > > > If there is no minimum wage, they will still be affronted working for so > > > little, surely? > > > > Maybe they're willing to work for $4 rather than not work for $5. > > Why are you telling them they can't. > > Why should their employer get away with making people labour for so little? I didn't think we were talking about slavery. > It is not telling the person they cant choose to work for less money it is > telling people they cant make people work for less than what is considered > the minimum to live on. Why should there be an artificial bound? Who decides, komrad? > > > > Do you think the cost of living in east-bumfuck IA is the same as > > > > downtown Manhattan? > > > > > Not at all. I am sure I didnt say that and I hope I didnt imply that. > > > > Then why do you support a FEDERAL minimum wage, exactly the same > > for both? > > Because a minimum wage is better than none. That's exactly what's wrong with the minimum wage; the "none" part. > Where the cost of living is > greater less people will work for minimum wage. So why would people work for less than it takes to live without the minimum wage? You're the circular one here. > You seem to be arguing for higher minimum wages here. This flies in the face > of your previous arguments. Again, you don't read well. I'm arguing for NO minimum wage. Let the market decide what a "fair" wage is, just like it decides what a "fair" price is. > > > > You said you didnt think anyone worked for the minimum, and I asked if > > > that > > > was the case what is the problem with the minimum wage? > > > > There are people who do work for minimum wage, but they don't > > "live" on it. Think kids. > > I did say I didn't think any one could live on the minimum wage. It is odd > you back this up with suggesting people should be paid less - which is even > less than you can live on in your example. Good grief, would you *READ*! Bye! -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 11:58 In article <ejcdog$8ss_011(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.1fc11d6c7f7a92ce989af6(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ej7b7t$8qk_023(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <4em5h.2414$6t.70(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > <snip> > > > >> >> You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual > >> >> style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. > >> > > >> >Yes, defending an untenable position against data and logic will cause one > >> >to do that. > >> > >> Actually, the problem is property taxes doubling and then quadrupling > >> every four or five years. And we in Mass. passed a 2.5% cap. The > >> governor people just elected has promised to undo it. > > > >Our property tax is increasing at about 10% per year. > > Goodfuckinggrief! I sure hope Duvall doesn't know Vermont > exists. I'm sure he does. It's pretty much all school taxes. There are something like 95,000 primary and secondary students in the state and 300 school districts (three school districts in the town I live in). Do the arithmetic. Statewide the classroom teacher to student ratio for the state is 1:11. There is one non-classroom teacher for every two classroom teachers and one teacher's aid for every two classroom teachers. Added up that makes 5.5 students per "teacher". Every one (plus the administration for every one of those 300 school districts) gets a benefits package that would make me blush (they're bitching about paying 10% co-pay). Added up it makes my property tax about 3% of the assessed valuation. We're looking to move and have found nice three bedroom apartments (while we build a house) for what we pay in taxes alone. > > >I'm outta > >here in a couple of months (the day after we sell the joint). > > The state isn't ever bothering to eat its seed corn. Oh, but they are! Vermont has the highest cost for tertiary education of any state. The kids can't afford to go to school in state, so leave. There is little industry stay gone. It's become a state of dependants (24% are on some sort of public assistance) and out-of-state ultra-rich. I'm outta here ASAP! > >> >>AS minimum > >> >> wage goes skyhigh, > >> > > >> >This is disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting it go "sky high". The > >> >contemplated increase, the first such in something like 20 years, is about > >> >$2, or about $20. In that time, inflation has gone up nearly 100%. I'd > say > >> >that's a rather modest increase. > >> > >> Are you saying that there is no correltation between a minimum > >> wage increase and living expense increases? > >> > >> > >> I say there is a correlation. > > > >Even without a correlation (there is) the federal minimum wage is > >wrong. > > Not for people who want to take your money and spend it for you > because you're too stupid to spend it unwisely. Certainly I can't spend it as unwisely as the leftist loons! -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 11:58 In article <sirhl21983tk9o21n39hsn7ebapn7demdi(a)4ax.com>, ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:18:42 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > > Welfare ("benefits") is for > >socialists. > > I am sure that, if I find you one day having fallen out of a (almost > typed "your" there) tree or had some other kind of accident that would > require the intervention of someone else to prevent you bleeding or > freezing to death (or whatever), you will entirely understand if I do > absolutely nothing to help you or in any way conribute to your > welfare, because you do not believe in such things and would regard me > as a nasty socialist. OK, I can live with that. > SO you freely admit to being an idiot. -- Keith
From: Don Bowey on 14 Nov 2006 12:25 On 11/14/06 8:58 AM, in article MPG.1fc3a4bd42402541989b33(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <aa7jl21smbdfqca8rjki6o4mc0c0h1dlek(a)4ax.com>, > ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:16:44 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:50:42 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It might be a part time second >>>>> job, or a kid might do it. >>>> >>>> Send them down the mines or up the chimneys, best place for them. >>> >>> That's *your* answer, of course. >> >> There's nothing socialist about me, remember. >> > The very idea of a "living wage" is socialist. Or fair, humanistic, concerned. It must be time to organize workers who are receiving less than decent wages. Do you really want to improve your personal condition by cheating people out of a fair share of their country?
From: Don Bowey on 14 Nov 2006 12:27
On 11/14/06 8:58 AM, in article MPG.1fc3a8d14611ef0a989b34(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <YIqdnVejL9AsT8XYRVnytw(a)pipex.net>, > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fc11bd2984185bf989af4(a)news.individual.net... >>> <nsadnUzBav053sjYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >>>> >>>> I dont agree. However, if that is the case then no minimum wage means no >>>> one >>>> has worth. >>> >>> BS. The worth is decided by what one is willing to pay for the >>> services rendered. If it's worth zero, the service isn't very >>> important, eh? Why should it get done. If it's worth $5 an hour >>> and someone is willing to do the service for $5 an hour it's worth >>> *exactly* $5 per hour. Minimum wage means that the government >>> decrees that there are no jobs worth less. Perhaps there are. >> >> Circular argument. > > No, it's not. It's called "capitalism". You have a widget I want > more than $$ and you want $$ more than what I want. We come to an > agreement on how many $$ the widget is worth. We're both happy. > Substitute "labor" for "widget" and it's *exactly* the same. Price > fixing is anti-capitalistic. > >> If the minimum wage is $5 an hour then jobs that are >> worth less wont get done. It is the same as if there is no minimum wage. Why >> should jobs which pay less than $5 an hour get done? > > Why is there an artificial limit on what jobs get done? >> >> What you are saying is there are jobs which are worth so little people >> should still do them but not be paid a reasonable amount for it. > > You don't read well, eh? I'll slow down... If someone is offering > a job for $4 and someone is willing to do a job for $4 it is > *worth* $4, no more no less. At $5 the person offering the job may > decide that it's not worth doing and the person who was willing for > $4 no makes $0. > > What is "reasonable"? Who determines "reasonable"? You? You > lefties sure like to control others, eh? > >>>> Surely, your argument is that a persons "worth" is what they are being >>>> paid? >>> Kinda the definition of "worth" isn't it? >> >> Well a minimum wage keeps peoples worth up as it is saying no one is worth >> _less_ than $5 an hour. You seem to say some people should be. > > If they're willing to work for $1 and someone is willing to hire > them for $1, that's the _exactly_ the worth of their effort. > >> With or without a minimum wage people are free to get better paid jobs. With >> a minimum wage people desparate for work are protected from over >> exploitation. > > Spoken like a good little party member. > >>>> That being minimum wage is no different from it being any other poorly >>>> paid >>>> wage. If someone is affronted by being told they are worth ?5.15 an >>>> hour, >>>> they can get a different job. >>> >>> Exactly. >> >> So what is wrong with the minimum wage? > > The same thing that's wrong with any price fixing. > >>>> If there is no minimum wage, they will still be affronted working for so >>>> little, surely? >>> >>> Maybe they're willing to work for $4 rather than not work for $5. >>> Why are you telling them they can't. >> >> Why should their employer get away with making people labour for so little? > > I didn't think we were talking about slavery. > >> It is not telling the person they cant choose to work for less money it is >> telling people they cant make people work for less than what is considered >> the minimum to live on. > > Why should there be an artificial bound? Who decides, komrad? > >>>>> Do you think the cost of living in east-bumfuck IA is the same as >>>>> downtown Manhattan? >>> >>>> Not at all. I am sure I didnt say that and I hope I didnt imply that. >>> >>> Then why do you support a FEDERAL minimum wage, exactly the same >>> for both? >> >> Because a minimum wage is better than none. > > That's exactly what's wrong with the minimum wage; the "none" part. > >> Where the cost of living is >> greater less people will work for minimum wage. > > So why would people work for less than it takes to live without the > minimum wage? You're the circular one here. > >> You seem to be arguing for higher minimum wages here. This flies in the face >> of your previous arguments. > > Again, you don't read well. I'm arguing for NO minimum wage. Let > the market decide what a "fair" wage is, just like it decides what > a "fair" price is. >> >>>> You said you didnt think anyone worked for the minimum, and I asked if >>>> that >>>> was the case what is the problem with the minimum wage? >>> >>> There are people who do work for minimum wage, but they don't >>> "live" on it. Think kids. >> >> I did say I didn't think any one could live on the minimum wage. It is odd >> you back this up with suggesting people should be paid less - which is even >> less than you can live on in your example. > > Good grief, would you *READ*! Bye! Yes. I see you are a greedy person with no soul. |