a question for left-liberals

[BCEmporium]

If a job worth less than 3 US/h than it's not worthing nor it's something to be called "innovative".

Further than that, if you want to go on your own, you still have the right to do it, however when it comes to hire people we're talking about one taking profit out of someone else's work, that's what "work for others" stands for.
If you want to co-op with someone under an innovative "we don't know if it can take off", than you could be his parter, not his pimp... sorry... boss. That's the key issue.

[1714939872]

1714939872

[1714939872]

1714939872

[1714939872]

1714939872

[SgtSpike]

If a job worth less than 3 US/h than it's not worthing nor it's something to be called "innovative".

Further than that, if you want to go on your own, you still have the right to do it, however when it comes to hire people we're talking about one taking profit out of someone else's work, that's what "work for others" stands for.
If you want to co-op with someone under an innovative "we don't know if it can take off", than you could be his parter, not his pimp... sorry... boss. That's the key issue.

Why couldn't it be called innovative?

Shouldn't it be the worker's option whether he wants to take a job @ $3/hr in the first place?   I know I certainly wouldn't, but there might be some people out there who would say it's better than nothing.  And some people might not want to take the risk of a co-op for a startup.

[BCEmporium]

Work for such wage isn't an "option", to the best it qualifies for "extreme poverty need", and instead of help we go on exploit the situation...

As for joint ventures, the ones on it can either succeed or not, anyway, they're fair. If it fails one lose some money and the other effort, if it kicks in both win... so that's life.

[NghtRppr]

If a job is worth $3 an hour then it's worth $3 an hour. That's a tautology. You'd rather them get nothing?

[SgtSpike]

Work for such wage isn't an "option", to the best it qualifies for "extreme poverty need", and instead of help we go on exploit the situation...

As for joint ventures, the ones on it can either succeed or not, anyway, they're fair. If it fails one lose some money and the other effort, if it kicks in both win... so that's life.

But if I make a painting an hour that can only sell for $4, why would it make sense for the company to pay me $6/hr?

Giving me an option is not exploitation.  Forcing me to not have the option at all might be closer to it though...

[kiba]

Work for such wage isn't an "option", to the best it qualifies for "extreme poverty need", and instead of help we go on exploit the situation...

Exploitation? I called it efficiency.

Something are worth 0.01 cents, and something are worth 3 bucks, and some thing are worth tons of money. If you price out the possibility of production below the minimum wage, you're simply impoverishing humanity.

What you're doing is making value judgement based on relative prices, rather than the economic output. More economic output simply means more goods and services available for humanity which mean...we are richer!

How google made their money? They allowed the monetization of tons of blogs and website that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

Instead of earning nothing, blogs could earn a dollar or two everyday. Eventually, some of these blogs become so valuable that it allows their owners to quit their job.

[BCEmporium]

Minimum wage is a social barrier, not an economic one.
It's meant to not have poverty situations exploited, has nothing to do with production or even economics.

Looks like you folks skipped all history classes and just want to jump in a slippery slope we all must already know where it ends. Back on when corps were already around and economics were what you seam to want now, unions were as good as "a social fund to pay for your funeral".
It's not "quite" you guys I would concern about in this issue.

Also the Google behavior has changed once it became a big corporation... it's no longer that "generous", as its stock holders want profit just for sit around with the shares in the pocket.
Actually stock holders are the "rich freeloaders", they occupy the opposite chair of the freeloading budget, being the other those on unemployment checks...

[SgtSpike]

Minimum wage is a social barrier, not an economic one.
It's meant to not have poverty situations exploited, has nothing to do with production or even economics.

Looks like you folks skipped all history classes and just want to jump in a slippery slope we all must already know where it ends. Back on when corps were already around and economics were what you seam to want now, unions were as good as "a social fund to pay for your funeral".
It's not "quite" you guys I would concern about in this issue.

Also the Google behavior has changed once it became a big corporation... it's no longer that "generous", as its stock holders want profit just for sit around with the shares in the pocket.
Actually stock holders are the "rich freeloaders", they occupy the opposite chair of the freeloading budget, being the other those on unemployment checks...

Stock holders risked their hard-earned money on the off chance that a startup in silicon valley would succeed.  They deserve every penny of dividends, as they could have EASILY lost everything they invested.

I don't understand where you are getting hung up on our arguments.  Bottom line is, if you try to force employers to pay more for a job than it is worth, the employer simply won't pay for the job.  Minimum wage helps keep the unemployment rate high.  You seem to keep dancing around this.

And unions are terrible as well.  They muck with the market wage, just like minimum wage, causing union workers to be out of work because there are too many laborers for too small a pool of work that needs to be done.  Just look at the construction industry, where unions reign, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

[BCEmporium]

Define «hard-earned»...
Are you in position to define exactly what's hard and what's easy? One that just inherited from his dead aunt would still be within such group?

And as so... the workers are in the "easy money"?

[FreeMoney]

Minimum wage is screwy. You can have someone work for free if you both want. Or you can have them work for a pizza if you both want, but you can't give them $4/hr if you both want? Get the hell out of our lives, strangers.

[SgtSpike]

Define «hard-earned»...
Are you in position to define exactly what's hard and what's easy? One that just inherited from his dead aunt would still be within such group?

And as so... the workers are in the "easy money"?

Oh brother.    I'm not even going to respond to that.

[kiba]

Minimum wage is a social barrier, not an economic one.
It's meant to not have poverty situations exploited, has nothing to do with production or even economics.

When you're talking about price, productive output, etc, it is an economic issue, period.

Looks like you folks skipped all history classes and just want to jump in a slippery slope we all must already know where it ends. Back on when corps were already around and economics were what you seam to want now, unions were as good as "a social fund to pay for your funeral".
It's not "quite" you guys I would concern about in this issue.

Yes, we know what we read in history book in school written by god-knows biased historians.

Also the Google behavior has changed once it became a big corporation... it's no longer that "generous", as its stock holders want profit just for sit around with the shares in the pocket.
Actually stock holders are the "rich freeloaders", they occupy the opposite chair of the freeloading budget, being the other those on unemployment checks...

Please give us concrete examples of how Google changed from good to bad.

The fact is, Google revolutionized and make efficient advertising. The fact that google is no longer generous does not invalidate the economic efficiency that Google brings.

[kiba]

Define «hard-earned»...
Are you in position to define exactly what's hard and what's easy? One that just inherited from his dead aunt would still be within such group?

And as so... the workers are in the "easy money"?

And so you get to defined what's poverty and what's not, what's exploitation and what's not. The problem is these labels are relative comparison of wealth.

The poor who own a TV, a phone, and get to eat something everday is far different than the poor who labors on farms in the middle of the age.

[BCEmporium]

Still, Google didn't employ anyone to write blogs, you could take risk... or not, they hadn't hire you and you could stop at anytime. But you were pretty much on your own.

Here we're talking about directly taking profit of others' work which, regardless it give 1 US profit or 10 wouldn't still change the income of the employee, who gets himself a load of imposed rules to comply with along.

[kiba]

Still, Google didn't employ anyone to write blogs, you could take risk... or not, they hadn't hire you and you could stop at anytime. But you were pretty much on your own.

So what?

Here we're talking about directly taking profit of others' work which, regardless it give 1 US profit or 10 wouldn't still change the income of the employee, who gets himself a load of imposed rules to comply with along.

So what?

Let me remind me you that the moral sensibility of human beings may be far different from your and thus we won't ever agree simply because we have different goals and goal system.

[SgtSpike]

Still, Google didn't employ anyone to write blogs, you could take risk... or not, they hadn't hire you and you could stop at anytime. But you were pretty much on your own.

Here we're talking about directly taking profit of others' work which, regardless it give 1 US profit or 10 wouldn't still change the income of the employee, who gets himself a load of imposed rules to comply with along.

So you advocate that companies should be required to share profit with employees?

You're also acting like employees would be forced to work at such places.  If you want to work at a profit sharing facility, then wait until such a job is offered and apply for it.  No one is forcing you to work at a place that, *gasp*, doesn't share profits with its employees!

Besides, how would a full-on profit sharing setup leave any room for innovation?  If I take a risk, put a mortgage on my house, sell everything I have, and start up a company that has a 99% chance of failing within the first 5 years (which is generally what statistics tells us happens to new startups), there'd better be one heck of a reward coming if it DOES succeed!  If I'm forced to share all of my profits with my employees, why would I even bother starting up the company in the first place?  I'd have no incentive to take that huge risk.

[BCEmporium]

Let me remind me you that the moral sensibility of human beings may be far different from your(...)

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

[kiba]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

You care about people getting their "fair share", whatever it mean. I do not.

I do not value equality as a moral goal in itself.

[BCEmporium]

SgtSpike,

Sure... but one thing is for your venture to get profitable fair and square other is for it to be profitable out of others' being underpaid.

Actually we already have it around, with the exploitation of chinese. "Far from sight slavery". Everything has its production costs and if you're buying it too cheap, someone else's paying the "difference".

But I already see your points, and we are becoming redundant. Yep, politically we wouldn't get along, but luckily money is color (and wing)-blind.

[Anonymous]

The world is most efficient when the interest of the individual is always kept at heart. Only the individual should decide what is rational for himself and if it includes somebody making an excessive profit off his ignorance or otherwise, so be it. A market may emerge to educate these ignorant and bring up the value of their labor by encouraging them to sell it directly at a fair price. That's what natural unions did before they were granted excessive privileges by the state.

In other words, a safety-net based on coercion isn't needed to help people. People can and have helped themselves.

Also: To those that disagree and say that I must pay for your ineffective charity, you can pry the funds from my dead cold fingers.