Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 06:23:03 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What is your opinion of the Maximum role of Government in society?
Absolute: Government should control all services and prices. - 4 (4.7%)
Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain) - 23 (26.7%)
Minimal: The Government should limit itself to courts and military. - 32 (37.2%)
None: All services and goods should be provided privately (or collectively). - 27 (31.4%)
Total Voters: 85

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Maximum role of Government?  (Read 23069 times)
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2011, 05:43:17 AM
 #621

hard line libertarianism allows for social responsibility, and even encourages it, for renewable resources.
I don't understand. I mean all kinds of social responsibility, not just issues to do with shared resources but the whole "hands off my shit", "fuck you", selfish, antisocial attitude associated with libertarian political stances.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480832583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832583
Reply with quote  #2

1480832583
Report to moderator
1480832583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832583
Reply with quote  #2

1480832583
Report to moderator
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2011, 05:52:33 AM
 #622

hard line libertarianism allows for social responsibility, and even encourages it, for renewable resources.
I don't understand. I mean all kinds of social responsibility, not just issues to do with shared resources but the whole "hands off my shit", "fuck you", selfish, antisocial attitude associated with libertarian political stances.

It's more "hands off my shit" than "fuck you". Libertarians acknowledge and encourage charities as the way to handle social issues that government is used for now.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 08:29:58 PM
 #623

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2011, 08:43:48 PM
 #624

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?
Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 08:54:18 PM
 #625

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?
Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.
Seeing how "the market" has been unable to fix a lot of things that regulation fixed rather quickly I'd say that some things the government does better. Perhaps this is one of those things. I'm a pragmatic person. Use whatever works.
I don't really see the market taking the lead in being green.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 23, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
 #626

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?
Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.
Seeing how "the market" has been unable to fix a lot of things that regulation fixed rather quickly

Name one example of a market failure that was 'fixed' by regulation.  Just one.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 09:21:15 PM
 #627

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?
Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.
Seeing how "the market" has been unable to fix a lot of things that regulation fixed rather quickly

Name one example of a market failure that was 'fixed' by regulation.  Just one.
Employee safety regulation comes to mind.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
grantbdev
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292



View Profile
July 23, 2011, 09:24:32 PM
 #628

I don't think my ideology has a name, although I think it is a form of socialism:

Quote
Socialism (ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.
-Wikipedia

My dream society would be one based on the goal of removing hierarchy in both economic and social affairs and giving value to every human being. Power comes from all people for all people.

The way this would be achieved is through decentralization, either through a confederal or federal democratic republic system. The rules of property would be as follows: your house, your food, your consumer items such as books, TVs, etc. but the means of production belong to the public, so the factories that build the TVs are the public's right.

However, monopolization of production would be discouraged, instead the means of production would be delegated to co-operative enterprises that compete against each other in a market. The reason for this being that the competition insures the best possible products, choice, more employment, and decentralization of power. The co-operatives give workers more power in their company, producing a more equitable income and there would be almost no regulation required because business decisions would be democratic among the workers of the company.

You could still start a new business, but by law it would have to be a co-operative once you start including other people. Anything that is required by function to be a monopoly, such as public services as firefighting, would be run democratically through the government (in the case of firefighting, very low on the [con]federal system.)

Government's functions would be divided among the different levels wherever it makes the most sense, and it's main functions would be defense, courts/justice, delegating the means of production, and running public services that cannot function in a market system correctly. The currency would be something like bitcoin (of course!), decentralized and under the people's control.

Don't use BIPS!
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 24, 2011, 02:41:42 AM
 #629

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?
Meat popsicles?
lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?
Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?
Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.
Seeing how "the market" has been unable to fix a lot of things that regulation fixed rather quickly

Name one example of a market failure that was 'fixed' by regulation.  Just one.
Employee safety regulation comes to mind.

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 01, 2011, 09:53:06 PM
 #630

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
August 01, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
 #631

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2011, 11:04:21 PM
 #632

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

+1

I saw those guys on Discovery's Most Dangerous Jobs. They deserve every penny and then some.

The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 01:08:38 AM
 #633

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right?  They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it.  Crazy stuff.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 02:26:30 AM
 #634

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right?  They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it.  Crazy stuff.

They often wear faraday suits, but yes, they have to mount the wires from a helicopter because it can be equalized without harm.  A crane cannot.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 06:26:11 AM
 #635

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right?  They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it.  Crazy stuff.

They often wear faraday suits, but yes, they have to mount the wires from a helicopter because it can be equalized without harm.  A crane cannot.

Right.  Helicopters are a floating ground, so no path for the current to go through. 
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 10:55:47 AM
 #636


You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.

$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 03:32:07 PM
 #637

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.

or they rely on a buyers market in employment (more workers than jobs) and take advantage of desperation on the part of workers and/or disymmetry of information.

Also, $70/hr?  a well certified welder (not even considering hazardous conditions welding) can make $100+/hr.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 05:51:43 PM
 #638

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.

or they rely on a buyers market in employment (more workers than jobs) and take advantage of desperation on the part of workers and/or disymmetry of information.

They try.  That doesn't mean that they succeed.

Quote
Also, $70/hr?  a well certified welder (not even considering hazardous conditions welding) can make $100+/hr.

I can make $100 an hour also.  Doesn't mean that happens often.  That $70 per hour quote is base wages.  Also, I personally know quite a few certified welders, most of whom make between $18 and $25 around here, base wages.  $100 per hour to weld is great work, if you can find it.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 05:54:13 PM
 #639


You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.

$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.


$70 per hour for job that doesn't require a degree or a willingness to charge a machine gun nest is pretty good.  I'd be willing to bet you are a lawyer.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 08:49:07 PM
 #640


You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.


$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.


Two questions:  1)  What do you do?  2) How can I do it too?   Wink 

No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.

So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves?  Why?  What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!