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.
I'll let the world's billion or so Catholics, the billion or so adherents of other Christian denominations (along with Jews, and let's throw in the billion and a half Muslims since they hold to the same), and the billion or so Hindus know that you categorically dismiss the basic principles of their professed beliefs and values. I'm sure that the fact that some random person on the Internet has said so will be quite persuasive to them. /sarc
Your error here is that you're assessing the statements as either true or false, when I repeatedly made clear in the post to which you tried to reply that the statements were of moral quality. That kind of argument you posted, taken to an extreme, would lead one to rationalize all manner of immoral, but coldly logical and rationally expedient, claims.
This is a critical element of all discussions in this forum: There is a difference between what's just and what works within the context of the financial ledgers. It is absolutely essential to be able to think about both facets of these issues, because there are economic realities on the one side and there are human beings on the other side. It is unacceptable to ignore the fact that both facets exist just because it makes it exceedingly difficult to defend the behaviors that you want to defend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
I'll bet half the complainers couldn't differentiate revenue, income and cash in their minds.
And how may couldn't differentiate justice from a balanced budget?
Tech workers can barely afford apartments as well. Being well paid gets you roommates unless you locked in a lease 5 years ago.
Having a time machine would work too. And a money printing machine.
With a time machine you don't need to counterfeit cash. See "Back to the Future" or "The Time Traveler's Wife"
Sports results book, or winning lottery tickets.
So in other words, you couldn't think of a legitimate response to what I actually wrote, so you chose to post some inane response to something no one said.
You did the same exact thing with Cheesesteak Cravings. You responded to what you wanted Cheesesteak Cravings to say, rather than what Cheesesteak Cravings actually did say. The fact that you cannot come up with legitimate responses to what people are actually posting should actually inform you about the failings of your own perspective, rather than an invitation to post arguments against things no one has posted.
Go back. Read what I wrote. Read it for understanding. And then, if you actually have something to post in response to what I actually wrote, please do so.
Mostly true. However, there is nothing that actually "requires" a specific business to be in business. As I said, society doesn't need for there to be a business that can only be profitable if it engages in exploitation of the desperation of what has effectively been a permanent underclass. That's just slavery repackaged in pretty lace. It is in society's best interest to have an even playing field between employers and employees rather than something unbalanced in either direction, where desperation of one side is exploited for the gain of the other side.
I've come up with spectacular responses to other people's strawman arguments.
I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing, on one hand it sounds like you want direct government intervention to provide for everybody, but on the other hand your last sentence agrees with my perspective that we just need to tweak the rules that allow but do not force employees to collectively bargain in their interests.
If those employees "still need to eat", why aren't you out there taking care of that desperate need?
Oh, yeah, not your job... it's only yours to point to someone else and say, "I see a problem, you have to go fix it!"
Why aren't you running a business and paying a "fair living wage" to all of your employees? Shouldn't you be acting to solve the problem? You aren't greedy and heartless, are you?
I actually do run a business and when I hire help, I do pay a living wage. So if that’s your idea of “solving the problem,†then there ya go.
So in other words, you couldn't think of a legitimate response to what I actually wrote, so you chose to post some inane response to something no one said.
You did the same exact thing with Cheesesteak Cravings. You responded to what you wanted Cheesesteak Cravings to say, rather than what Cheesesteak Cravings actually did say. The fact that you cannot come up with legitimate responses to what people are actually posting should actually inform you about the failings of your own perspective, rather than an invitation to post arguments against things no one has posted.
Go back. Read what I wrote. Read it for understanding. And then, if you actually have something to post in response to what I actually wrote, please do so.
It was YOU who brought up the idea of morality connected to business and employee pay.
Funny how people post comments but refuse to elaborate further. Then, when called out, they accuse others of posing statement arguments.
I'll let the world's billion or so Catholics, the billion or so adherents of other Christian denominations (along with Jews, and let's throw in the billion and a half Muslims since they hold to the same), and the billion or so Hindus know that you categorically dismiss the basic principles of their professed beliefs and values. I'm sure that the fact that some random person on the Internet has said so will be quite persuasive to them. /sarc
Your error here is that you're assessing the statements as either true or false, when I repeatedly made clear in the post to which you tried to reply that the statements were of moral quality. That kind of argument you posted, taken to an extreme, would lead one to rationalize all manner of immoral, but coldly logical and rationally expedient, claims.
There's no error here. I'm simply telling you how it is while you're arguing how it should be. Make a list of what society would consider "great nations" and virtually all of them failed miserably by those morality standards. There are few if any large nations, "great" or not, that meet those moral standards. You might find it in tribal societies though.
Rather than disagree why don't you just tell us what past societies were "great" based on those standards?
Of course, this is based on man doing the judging and measuring. If those statements were in reference to some "higher power" doing the judging and measuring then I have no comment on that as I don't care to speculate on the opinions of somebody else's god.
There's no error here. I'm simply telling you how it is while you're arguing how it should be. Make a list of what society would consider "great nations" and virtually all of them failed miserably by those morality standards. There are few if any large nations, "great" or not, that meet those moral standards. You might find it in tribal societies though.
Rather than disagree why don't you just tell us what past societies were "great" based on those standards?
Of course, this is based on man doing the judging and measuring. If those statements were in reference to some "higher power" doing the judging and measuring then I have no comment on that as I don't care to speculate on the opinions of somebody else's god.
As this is the Employment thread, I'm still trying to connect the dots between morality and employee pay.
Look at all the executive assistant jobs, HR assistant (pretty much ANY assisant), administrative, paralegal, office manager, business office manager, receptionist, retail worker, .....all at least want bachelors degree and TONS of experience. They pay $40-$60k in an area like LA and surroundings, where you need a second job to pay your bills. The cost of living over here is insanely out of balance with pay. Still .... lots of rich people.. I don't know how they do it ....with $40k/year you have to live with other people, you cannot even afford a studio apartment.
If your single with no kids or big debt its actually pretty easy to find a reasonable studio in California with a 40k to 60k salary
But yea if you have debt, have a family to raise, and want to buy house then yea I agree
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.
