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.
Exactly. Unless I was making a minimum of about $75k (which still won't get you much in most places) I wouldn't even consider living in California.
California is big. Get away from the coastal cities and, even with its state-wide tax situation, it becomes a lot more affordable. (Of course, finding jobs on those areas is a bit more of a craps shoot...) Regardless, I think this overlooks a couple of points - and specifically glosses over a number of durable reasons why people live in those areas of California. With regard to many of them, that is where the opportunities are, as inadequate in number as they may be. With regard to many of them, picking up and going to live somewhere else is impracticable, with reasons ranging from logistical (cannot afford childcare, so living near grandma is essential to making ends meet), to legal (probation, custody agreement, etc.)
The first highlighted portion generally means that the second highlighted portion won't be available for them. Generally, people that aren't very bright, and/or don't have good skills won't be getting high paying jobs.
Just proving my point that everyone getting a higher paying job does not work. If this is true then that someone has to work lower paying jobs then they should pay enough so that someone can afford housing and food.
Whether or not one can afford housing and food is irrelevant to the amount the job should pay.
That's wrong. An employer should not be able to exploit the desperation of workers with impunity. An enterprise that does not make enough profit -- enough profit so that the work of its workers is sufficiently valued so as to enable those workers to pay their own way and secure their own future -- is an enterprise that does not warrant its own existence. Enterprises that can exist only through such exploitation are a drain on society rather than contributors to it.
It is troubling to see the extent to which many in our society bend over backwards in attempts to rationalize what is, for all intents and purposes, a continuation of slavery culture accomplished by way of what is for many an unbreakable chain of economic desperation rather than by way of chains and fugitive slave legislation. It is troubling to see this especially on this day considered holy by 75% of Americans, a holy day that at its core is about sacrificing for the good of others, and a holy day that is linked to a Jewish holiday that is all about breaking the chains of bondage.
That's wrong. An employer should not be able to exploit the desperation of workers with impunity. An enterprise that does not make enough profit -- enough profit so that the work of its workers is sufficiently valued so as to enable those workers to pay their own way and secure their own future -- is an enterprise that does not warrant its own existence. Enterprises that can exist only through such exploitation are a drain on society rather than contributors to it.
Yet this does not answer the demands of the general public who want low prices on items. If the enterprise can't sell it's items at such a price that provides said benefits you demand they do, then what's the answer?
If a worker is desperate for work, haven't they done this to themselves for lack of education chances passed up on and an unwillingness to sacrifice now for their better future? Or, are they either older and more experienced and thus worth more, but the employer doesn't want to pay their demands and wants the younger and more ignorant newbie?
Yet this does not answer the demands of the general public who want low prices on items.
In the same way a parent taking yet-another-chocolate candy away from a child "does not answer the demands of" that child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
An enterprise that does not make enough profit -- enough profit so that the work of its workers is sufficiently valued so as to enable those workers to pay their own way and secure their own future -- is an enterprise that does not warrant its own existence.
If the enterprise can't sell it's items at such a price that provides said benefits you demand they do, then what's the answer?
Asked and answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman
If a worker is desperate for work, haven't they done this to themselves for lack of education chances passed up on and an unwillingness to sacrifice now for their better future?
Either you smeeked the thread, or are being deliberately obtuse. It is very well-established that not everyone has the same access to education as everyone else, and very well-established that not everyone with the same education derives the same benefits from the economy as a result - but most importantly, what we have made clear in this thread over and over and over and over again is that if everyone was to have the same level of education that would not increase the number of positions for people with that level of education, and therefore the only impact of more people gaining such education is pretty-much what we've seen comparing 1958 to 2018: That the economy simply reduces the value of skilled work as the number of people who have such skills increases above the quantity of such positions available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman
Or, are they either older and more experienced and thus worth more, but the employer doesn't want to pay their demands and wants the younger and more ignorant newbie?
This was actually a fundamental principle of Frederick Taylor: Divide and sub-divide complex (read: skilled) work further and further until the work any worker does has relatively little value, and therefore people can be paid very little to do it. Myriad older workers are experiencing the "choice" to either take big pay cuts (so they can compete with younger workers) or go without work. This was not the case before the inflection point I discussed earlier in the thread. (And if you don't know what I'm referring to, because you smeeked, then perhaps a reading of the thread is in order.)
For seven years, Yeweinishet “Weini” Mesfin lived out of her Honda Civic.
A night janitor at Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, Mesfin decided not to tell family and coworkers that she was homeless, outside of one or two people.
When she died, barely a week after her birthday, she was alone in that same car — a 61-year-old woman, worn out, suffering from heart problems. A victim of her own secrecy, nobody in her life could be there to help her.
That's wrong. An employer should not be able to exploit the desperation of workers with impunity. An enterprise that does not make enough profit -- enough profit so that the work of its workers is sufficiently valued so as to enable those workers to pay their own way and secure their own future -- is an enterprise that does not warrant its own existence. Enterprises that can exist only through such exploitation are a drain on society rather than contributors to it.
It is troubling to see the extent to which many in our society bend over backwards in attempts to rationalize what is, for all intents and purposes, a continuation of slavery culture accomplished by way of what is for many an unbreakable chain of economic desperation rather than by way of chains and fugitive slave legislation. It is troubling to see this especially on this day considered holy by 75% of Americans, a holy day that at its core is about sacrificing for the good of others, and a holy day that is linked to a Jewish holiday that is all about breaking the chains of bondage.
The level of profit earned by the company is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether they can or can't pay more is completely irrelevant. The only relevance is the value of the job. And that value is determined by the market - not by you or any other collectivist.
It is immoral to value a person's work based on market forces alone. It is reprehensibly callous to ignore the realities of how much it costs for a person in a society to pay their own way and secure their own future. "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." [Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23, Paragraph (3).] You can consider yourself an authority of one, but these moral principles you are trying to hide from are not going to go away because you prefer a more avaricious perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
not by you or any other collectivist.
When you have to start calling me names you should realize that you're working too hard to defend an immoral perspective. Comment on the issue and what other poster post - do not try to insult other posters, personally, or stoop to name-calling to try to disparage other posters, personally - or is that behavior of yours yet-another example of the self-serving nature of the perspectives you prefer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
There is no exploitation going on.
Stop denying the realities of things that you feel are below your concern, and stop rolling your eyes in order to avoid having to regard and discuss the matter with integrity.
It is immoral to value a person's work based on market forces alone.
It is the ONLY moral mechanism for determining the value of work.
Quote:
It is reprehensibly callous to ignore the realities of how much it costs for a person in a society to pay their own way and secure their own future.
One's cost of living is irrelevant to the value of a job. If one cannot afford to live on what a job pays, one needs to secure alternative sources of funds. A better paying job, or an additional job, would be a good start.
Quote:
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." [Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23, Paragraph (3).]
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights becomes the law of the land in the US, it will then be something to concern ourselves with. Until then, it is irrelevant.
Quote:
You can consider yourself an authority of one, but these moral principles you are trying to hide from are not going to go away because you prefer a more avaricious perspective.
Have fun with your moral principles. They aren't going to change how the world works, regardless of how vociferously you argue for that to be the case.
Quote:
When you have to start calling me names you should realize that you're working too hard to defend an immoral perspective. Comment on the issue and what other poster post - do not try to insult other posters, personally, or stoop to name-calling to try to disparage other posters, personally - or is that behavior of yours yet-another example of the self-serving nature of the perspectives you prefer?
Do you really think that trying to scold me will change anything?
Quote:
Stop denying the realities of things that you feel are below your concern, and stop rolling your eyes in order to avoid having to regard and discuss the matter with integrity.
I haven't denied any realities. If you believe otherwise, by all means, link to the thread(s) and note the post numbers where I have done so.
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.
