Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 21:58 In article <C17F3C95.4C940%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dbowey(a)comcast.net says... > 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. Reading comprehension problem? -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 21:58 In article <C17F3DBD.4C942%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dbowey(a)comcast.net says... > On 11/14/06 8:58 AM, in article > MPG.1fc3acd12058173e989b36(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> > wrote: > > > > 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! > > So what's holding you? My house. The day it's sold I'm gone. I said that, but you have that reading comprehension problem going on. > Someone picking up your tab, hypocrite? Nope, and nope! -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 21:58 In article <455A00B8.1CF0F40D(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > > > > > Thanks. I used to thread pipe for my Dad. He never called > > > it a tap. He called a threader. > > > > A pipe "threader" would be called a "die". > > Not if it was an internal thread. I've never seen an internal thread on a pipe. Have you? -- Keith
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Nov 2006 22:01 unsettled wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that > >>the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for > >>some time now that if you can't afford the medicines > >>you need you should contact them because they have > >>programs to assist those living in poverty needing > >>their products. > > > > > > > > Have you ever tried to qualify someone for free drugs? Every one > > I've tried to help was denied. > > Were they living in poverty? Yes. Well under $10,000 income per year. One of them finally got her disability and some medical help just in time. She almost lost her feet due to blood clots, and has had to undergo six operations to install stints to improve her circulation. She has spent the better part of this year in and out of the hospital. The others are still waiting, and hoping. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Nov 2006 22:01
unsettled wrote: > > YD wrote: > > > So, have the lot of you reached a consensus, does jihad need > > scientists or not? > > > > - YD, just throwing some spanners in the works. > > We ned to send them the brits participating in this thread. Who is ned? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |