-->
@RationalMadman
I never disagreed... I am simply arguing that power, as a concept, will corrupt people.
Long Conversation
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@3RU7AL
Quote the entire thing, and then we can talk
Let's say you got a very skilled fighter or more, about to either severely damage you or force you to give in to demands unless you obey.You either need to be (or have present and sided with you) a skilled fighter that can defeat him/her/them or have someone rich, powerful, charismatic and/or smart enough to ensure the fighter is no longer rendered both capable and willing of taking you down.This analogy applies to so many situations. Power can be, has been and always will be just as defensive as it is offensive.
They will imprison us, they will fine us, they will seize our possessions, but they cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.
They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me, then they will have my dead body, not my obedience. - Gandhi
-->
@3RU7AL
Mohandas Gandhi was the son of one of the most powerful men in India of his birth region. Gandhi used his power/influence to achieve his goals.
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you truly understood what you just agreed with, then you'd know it takes a powerful hero/group to defeat a powerful villain/group.
Gandhi was the son of one of the most powerful men in India of his birth region. Gandhi used his power/influence to achieve his goals.
The point here is that you don't have to be Gandhi in order to own yourself.
ANYBODY can claim their own personal sovereignty.
-->
@RationalMadman
mm, I spot claims and outlying anecdotal examples - can you please give to me research which supports your claims?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Life.
-->
@RationalMadman
Unfortunately not very convincing to somebody who hasn't experienced yours.
Should the minimum wage be raised?
no.
-->
@RationalMadman
I Let's say you got a very skilled fighter or more, about to either severely damage you or force you to give in to demands unless you obey.You either need to be (or have present and sided with you) a skilled fighter that can defeat him/her/them or have someone rich, powerful, charismatic and/or smart enough to ensure the fighter is no longer rendered both capable and willing of taking you down.This analogy applies to so many situations. Power can be, has been and always will be just as defensive as it is offensive
Let’s say you run a very famous gym which has a very proud culture. Loyal costumers love to take selfies of how strong and popular they are at this gym. Business is running smoothly, until competition arrives. You find this unacceptable; you take it as a personal insult. You say to yourself ‘they don’t know how hard I’ve worked to get here.’ Business starts the plummet, you panic. Until one day you come up with a brilliant idea to add an alcohol bar to your gym.
Do you understand what racing to the bottom is? What do you think made the U.S. strong in the first place?
-->
@Reece101
What made the USA strong in the first place.
Europeans. LOL.
And this is just another typical forum, where the conversation soon ended and the contentions began.
And Janesix is correct...Societies are naturally hierarchical.
Though the distribution of wealth does not necessarily match expectancy as it used to.
And Janesix is also correct when she says that despite hardship people tend not to go without unnecessary necessities.
And we are a selectively moral species, and will happily discuss the needy with reverence.
But how many of us will sleep uneasily tonight worrying about the poor person next door working for a minimum wage.
-->
@zedvictor4
Europeans. LOL.
This rhetoric is the consequence of racing to the bottom.
If you’re just going to quote one sentence and reply to it out of context, then I might do the same for you.
And this is just another typical forum, where the conversation soon ended and the contentions began.
I don’t know, a conversation is pretty broadly defined.
And Janesix is correct...Societies are naturally hierarchical.
Thanks for the truism. It’s matter of organisation and what we prioritise.
And Janesix is also correct when she says that despite hardship people tend not to go without unnecessary necessities.
Tell that to Texans that went without power because their local government didn’t give two shits about cutting corners in their energy sector.
And we are a selectively moral species, and will happily discuss the needy with reverence.But how many of us will sleep uneasily tonight worrying about the poor person next door working for a minimum wage
Maybe you should get to know your neighbour better, because there’s a lot of neighbours out there.
If you care about Dr. Seuss books and Pepé Le Pew more than your neighbour, you’re mentally ill.
-->
@Reece101
Let’s say you run a very famous gym which has a very proud culture. Loyal costumers love to take selfies of how strong and popular they are at this gym. Business is running smoothly, until competition arrives. You find this unacceptable; you take it as a personal insult. You say to yourself ‘they don’t know how hard I’ve worked to get here.’ Business starts the plummet, you panic. Until one day you come up with a brilliant idea to add an alcohol bar to your gym.Do you understand what racing to the bottom is? What do you think made the U.S. strong in the first place?
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
People tend to think humans are so "advanced" these days. But let the power go out for two weeks and see what happens. Altruism dies the worse off you are. In a general sense, for the majority of people. We are wild animals with a bit of brains, and our morals haven't caught up with our capabilities.
-->
@Reece101
And Janesix is correct...Societies are naturally hierarchical.Thanks for the truism. It’s matter of organisation and what we prioritise.
As individuals, we naturally place our individual selves at the top of the "hierarchy".
WE MUST DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV.
-->
@zedvictor4
And we are a selectively moral species, and will happily discuss the needy with reverence.
Your "morals" are like a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble.
A discussion of min wage is meaningless unless the entire field of variables is an agreed set.
Is it for one person, as originally conceived by the U.S. Fair Labor Act of 1938?
Should it be defined by [i.e., float with inflation rate, some other factor, or be a constant?
Should it be one value, nationwide, by State, or what?
Should it assume a 40-hour work week, or less, or more?
Should it be established on a no-skill basis, or on what other expectation of demonstrable skills?
There are probably other factors
-->
@fauxlaw
1968: The federal minimum wage peaks in purchasing power at $1.60 per hour, the equivalent of $11.53 in 2019 dollars. With the minimum wage was higher relative to living costs, Luce says, “Poverty of that period tended to be more of an issue of unemployment, rather than low-wage working poverty.” After 1968, the minimum wage doesn’t keep up with rising inflation.
Accounting only for standard inflation,
$1.60 per hour (1968) = $12.09 per hour (2021) [**]
Federal minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25 per hour.
But this entire subject is a bit of a RED-HERRING.
I'd be willing to completely eliminate the MINIMUM wage if we could replace it with a MAXIMUM wage.
There is no MINIMUM, you can pay your employees $1 an hour if you want.
But in exchange, NOBODY can take home personal income exceeding $5,000,000.00 (5mil) per year.
It would function under the same principle as the pro-sports salary caps.
-->
@3RU7AL
$1.60 in 1968? So... like I said, what should one expect of minimum wage but a simple wage for no skillset?
In 1966, one year from H.S. graduation, I earned $3.50 per hour working full time, and sometimes overtime, during the summer for the Santa Monica [CA] Board of Education, in line-art drawings for K-6 schools that fall, because I had a demonstrable skill. I even managed that skill in my senior-year advanced human physiology course, doing the illustrations for that class' final exam, in which I was a student. I cautioned my teacher that this would be cheating, because I would know in advance what was on the exam. He said, "You could fail the exam, and your coursework would still deserve an A. You don't have to tell anyone you did the illustrations." I replied, "I'll take the exam, just to preserve the lie." Having a skillset, and getting a solid education, and reputation, pays, and it has always served me well. I've been in school for over 70 years.
The point is, why is min wage such a avid subject? Isn't that like like tossing a penny into a wishing well, thinking, "I hope my toss gets the penny into the well?" If even such a toss is a challenge, no wonder people don't hope for, plan for, and execute the plan to earn a higher income than min wage. One will never earn enough to start putting their money to work for them if all they aspire to is min wage.
-->
@fauxlaw
$1.60 in 1968? So... like I said, what should one expect of minimum wage but a simple wage for no skillset?In 1966, one year from H.S. graduation, I earned $3.50 per hour working full time, and sometimes overtime, during the summer for the Santa Monica [CA] Board of Education, in line-art drawings for K-6 schools that fall, because I had a demonstrable skill. I even managed that skill in my senior-year advanced human physiology course, doing the illustrations for that class' final exam, in which I was a student. I cautioned my teacher that this would be cheating, because I would know in advance what was on the exam. He said, "You could fail the exam, and your coursework would still deserve an A. You don't have to tell anyone you did the illustrations." I replied, "I'll take the exam, just to preserve the lie." Having a skillset, and getting a solid education, and reputation, pays, and it has always served me well. I've been in school for over 70 years.
I'm very impressed that you were able to make triple the minimum wage while you were still a child.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the geographic area in which you happened to be born.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the parents who you happened to be born to.
All of your classmates could have all made $3.50 per hour drawing pictures if they each had the exact same skill-set as yourself.
You were chosen over them because you're a much better person.
-->
@3RU7AL
You're missing the entire point.
Yes, I grew up in an affluent environment, but that has naught to do with my early desire to achieve. That was what I brought to the table.
Yes, my parents were high achievers. But that's them; not me. I made the early decision to excel in school.
Yes, my classmates also had abilities, and a few even had mine, and some applied for the same position. My demonstration, more than merely the application, made the difference.
You want people to be the same. They are not. Some desire more, some are more ambitious, and therefore, some will achieve more than others.
-->
@fauxlaw
but that has naught to do with my early desire to achieve.
It absolutely did influence your "desire to achieve".
DESIRE IS NOT A CHOICE.
What, do you think kids in less affluent neighborhoods DON't "want to be rich and develop their talents and work hard"?
Do you think it's a cake-walk to manage a crack supply line?
Children set their goals and expectations based on their environment.
Children are like mirrors.
Oprah did not become an international media mogul because she was the only child with talent and a good work ethic in her neighborhood.
A very great many talented people with great work ethic live their entire lives on the edge of poverty.
-->
@fauxlaw
You want people to be the same. They are not.
No. Humans are not "fungible assets" and I've never indicated that I thought they were.
Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY wants to (intentionally) make "smart" people "dumber".
Are you perhaps familiar with the JENSEN BUTTON BOX?
-->
@3RU7AL
I choose to desire, and act to make it happen. Or I merely wish, and do nothing to achieve it.
-->
@fauxlaw
I choose to desire, and act to make it happen.
At what point did you "choose" to love your parents?
At what point did you "choose" to enjoy the experience of eating good food?
Certainly, you "choose" to take action to fulfil your desires.
But your initial desires and your (circumstantial) ability to fulfil them pre-existed any "choice" you made.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your questions all derive from your stated axiom that desire is not a choice. I simply disagree.
I don't know when I began to love my parents, but the choice to love them came once I knew I could trust that their advice was always in my best interest and not necessarily theirs.
What defines "good" food? I've always enjoyed eating food that tasted good to me, but my choice to eat good-tasting food grew out of a desire to make good-tasting food myself.
Otherwise, those choices are are not chosen for any reason other than desire as opposed to need. I need food, but need does not equate to desire of a purpose of eating good food. I need love, but need does not equate to desire of a purpose for love.
Circumstantial, like coincidence, is not a factor to me. I choose to amplify talents in which I find I already have unearned preference to act upon them. Anything lacking choice is merely wishing, but with no effort applied to achieve.
-->
@fauxlaw
Circumstantial, like coincidence, is not a factor to me.
There's a famous social experiment that involved randomly selecting three volunteers who agreed to play a game of monopoly together.
One of the players was given double the starting cash as the other two players.
Quite predictably, the player who started with twice the resources of the other players won the game 85% of the time.
And after the game, the researchers asked the winner, "why do you think you won?"
Overwhelmingly, the winning player would acknowledge, albeit dismissively, that sure, they started with more cash, but, they insisted, that was not the deciding factor in their victory. They always highlighted what they considered key points in the game when they made good decisions and insisted that even before the game had started they had already formulated a winning strategy and that was in fact the reason they were able to outplay their competitors.
When the tables were turned, the winners who were given the normal amount of starting cash were significantly more likely to say, "I got lucky".
-->
@3RU7AL
A famous social experiment with a poll at the end using a sample size of three people. And you expect statistically significant accuracy out of such a poll? Absurd. I would question, given the circumstance, why 100% of the players with disproportioned resources did not win. There must be other factors involved than just a selective distribution of resources that are not party to the data collection and interpretation. Some experiment.