Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know conservatives like to pretend they are family friendly, yet workers taking care of young children, the most precious thing in the world to most parents, are regularly paid poverty-level wages. So lets imagine all the good dedicated childcare workers switch to a higher paid field. Someone still has to do that job. Do you really think that parents want childcare centers rounding up workers from the day labour pools each day? There may come a day when we realize that some occupations are simply WORTH more than they are being paid, that market forces are just that, thoughtless market forces, and that everything in the world doesn't have to be determined by market forces.
Conservatives like him "pretend" to be family friendly?
You and I have disagreed many times on different threads but I have never once called your motives into question. I disagree with your solutions to problems, but I would never presume to declare that since your solution to a societal problem or conception of that problem is different than mine, that you don't really care about the problem.
In case of this particular issue, I believe that paying people what we think they should be worth rather than what market forces determine they are worth will be bad for those people. It's not because I don't care about these people that I oppose giving them more money, it's precisely beause I do care about them. Because I feel that if we did give them above market value wages that it would end up damaging the market to the point where more peoples' lives were hurt through job loss than people whose lives were helped through increased pay. If you take someone making $10/hr and tell their employer to pay them $20/hr instead, the employer may just say well I can't afford that and let the person go instead, resulting in them making $0/hr. Yes, I actually believe that as counterintuitive as it appears at first, that by paying people less you keep more people out of poverty than you would by paying people more.
You're free to disagree with those who support the free market of labor but you aren't free to declare what their motives are for their positions.
Conservatives like him "pretend" to be family friendly?
You and I have disagreed many times on different threads but I have never once called your motives into question. I disagree with your solutions to problems, but I would never presume to declare that since your solution to a societal problem or conception of that problem is different than mine, that you don't really care about the problem.
In case of this particular issue, I believe that paying people what we think they should be worth rather than what market forces determine they are worth will be bad for those people. It's not because I don't care about these people that I oppose giving them more money, it's precisely beause I do care about them. Because I feel that if we did give them above market value wages that it would end up damaging the market to the point where more peoples' lives were hurt through job loss than people whose lives were helped through increased pay. If you take someone making $10/hr and tell their employer to pay them $20/hr instead, the employer may just say well I can't afford that and let the person go instead, resulting in them making $0/hr. Yes, I actually believe that as counterintuitive as it appears at first, that by paying people less you keep more people out of poverty than you would by paying people more.
You're free to disagree with those who support the free market of labor but you aren't free to declare what their motives are for their positions.
It's not counterintuitive at all. Not all jobs are equal, sadly. Some jobs command a higher salary, usually depending on how easily replaced your skills are.
Conservatives like him "pretend" to be family friendly?
You and I have disagreed many times on different threads but I have never once called your motives into question. I disagree with your solutions to problems, but I would never presume to declare that since your solution to a societal problem or conception of that problem is different than mine, that you don't really care about the problem.
This is it in a nutshell. There is just something in the liberal/left way of thinking that automatically/reflexively ascribes hateful motives to those who disagree with them.
I used to naivelly think it was a sorta rhetorical ploy. Over the years though, I have come to believe and know, that this is really just the way these people think! Their whole belief system is predicated upon that those who oppose them are, by default, selfish people who don't care about other people.
No matter that self-identified conservatives give more of their own money to charitable causes than do self-identified liberals. No matter that liberals support a system that rewards (with money and power) those whose vested interest is in perpetuating the very "problem" they portend to want to solve?
*break here* For instance? The "War on Poverty". After billions and billions of dollars spent, the rate remains pretty much what it ever was. The end result was the creation of a vast bureacracy of pin-heads who make (however much money) to "solve" the problem. BUT...is it in their best interest to get people off the public dole? Hell no, it isn't. Their personal interest is to make sure they keep their jobs and security...which means making sure there will always be enough "poor people" out there so that they can.
Ah...hell
Nope. What matters is, they "care". And that is the bottom line for them. They pay no price for being wrong. They are not in the least affected, personally, by the results of their disasterous policies, nor to have to live in Section 8 housing and see reality rather than ivory towers. And that is just one miniscule example...
You know conservatives like to pretend they are family friendly, yet workers taking care of young children, the most precious thing in the world to most parents, are regularly paid poverty-level wages. So lets imagine all the good dedicated childcare workers switch to a higher paid field. Someone still has to do that job. Do you really think that parents want childcare centers rounding up workers from the day labour pools each day? There may come a day when we realize that some occupations are simply WORTH more than they are being paid, that market forces are just that, thoughtless market forces, and that everything in the world doesn't have to be determined by market forces.
And if you're not happy with those low wages, Obama and the liberals have millions of new illegals who would be glad to come here and work for less than that. Or ask yourself why immigration rates are way up in recent years?
You want to be fussy about how much you're paid -- think twice because there are plenty of people in the world who would be thrilled with your wages and Obama's got a huge amnesty planned for them.
And if you're not happy with those low wages, Obama and the liberals have millions of new illegals who would be glad to come here and work for less than that. Or ask yourself why immigration rates are way up in recent years?
How do you manage to completely disconnect yourself from reality?
Really? You think that "immigration rates are up"?
It's common knowledge that illegal immigration has slowed down under Obama's reign.
The comment you responded to was "Or ask yourself why immigration rates are way up in recent years?"
Your response is all about illegal Mexican immigration. You missed the point, which is that if things are so bad here in the US, why are people from all over the world banging down our doors to get here, legally or illegally?
"Nearly 14 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country from 2000 to 2010, making it the highest decade of immigration in American history."
My comment to you was about your personal insult. Because someone might disagree with you, or have information that you don't have, it doesn't follow that they are "disconnected from reality". That kind of comment is a complete thought stopper. These days we need to be thinking more, not less.
The comment you responded to was "Or ask yourself why immigration rates are way up in recent years?"
Your response is all about illegal Mexican immigration. You missed the point, which is that if things are so bad here in the US, why are people from all over the world banging down our doors to get here, legally or illegally?
"Nearly 14 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country from 2000 to 2010, making it the highest decade of immigration in American history."
My comment to you was about your personal insult. Because someone might disagree with you, or have information that you don't have, it doesn't follow that they are "disconnected from reality". That kind of comment is a complete thought stopper. These days we need to be thinking more, not less.
Again, the claim that Obama is for lower wages and is somehow responsible for an increase in illegal immigration is indeed disconnected from reality.
Are you going to tell me that he was including the 8 years under Bush, as your link does? No. He clearly tried to link Obama to it.
Also, isn't it a contradiction that Obama can be for cheap labor AND be in bed with labor unions all at the same time?
Again, the claim that Obama is for lower wages and is somehow responsible for an increase in illegal immigration is indeed disconnected from reality.
Who made that claim? I think you are responding to a strawman, rather than address what was actually said. I don't see that you are connected to the discussion as it exists.
Would you be kind enough to address what is actually being said? It seems such a waste to respond to someone who ignores the response in favor of something of their own concoction.
Quote:
Are you going to tell me that he was including the 8 years under Bush, as your link does? No. He clearly tried to link Obama to it.
I didn't see that, and I'm not trying to tell you anything about what someone else is including unless I saw them include it.
Quote:
Also, isn't it a contradiction that Obama can be for cheap labor AND be in bed with labor unions all at the same time?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
