• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is "hard work" a virtue?

Jackytar

Ex-member
I took a job, that I can barely do physically, just to get insurance so that hopefully I'll be able to better enjoy the things I like to do. Bad thing is, my productivity is below standards.

Yes, you are motivated into action by self interest. But you do so begrudgingly because everything seems unfair to you. So you advocate for a system that rewards you equally for being less productive or, better yet, not productive at all. That siphons off the productivity of others to include the delivery of health care. Go ahead, move to another country that champions your cause but don't get too comfortable. Because those energetic folks who actually produce the goods and services you demand will see the futility in any attempt to exemplify themselves and quit doing it or move away. Not everybody in every instance but as an overarching trend that has the lowest common denominator at it's center of gravity. That's what happens when you decouple effort and reward. When you fail to acknowledge that folks are generally self interested like yourself and that this is not an evil thing.

What you lack is a marketable skill. I suggest you get one while you are young and have no children or debt (please tell me you have no debt).

Jackytar
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
Footprints in the sands of time were never made by sitting down...

from skousen
…the most striking thing about the settlers of Jamestown was their startling similarity to the ancient pioneers who built settlements in other parts of the world 5,000 years earlier. The whole panorama of Jamestown demonstreated how shockingly little progress had been made by man during the past 5,000 years.
The settlers of Jamestown had come in a boat no larger and no more commodious than those of the ancient sea kings. Their tools still consisted of shovel, axe, hoe, and a stick plow which were only slightly improved over those of China, Egypt, Persia, and Greece. They harvested their grain and hay-grass with the same primitive scythes. They wore cloths made of thread spun on a wheel and woven by hand. Their medicines were noxious concoctions based on superstition rather than science. Their transportation was by cart and oxen.
Most of them died young.l Out of approximately 9,000 settlers who found their way to old Jamestown, only about 1,000 survived.

…….

Soon, two whole centuries had passed into history. By 1976 the “noble experiment” of American independence and free-enterprise economics had produced some phenomenal results.
One need not be an American citizen to feel a sense of genuine rice in the fantastic list of achievements which bubbled up from the massive melting pot of humanity that swarmed to the shores of this new land and contributed to its mighty leap in technical, political, and economic achievement.
The climate of free-market economics allowed science to thrive in an explosion of discoveries which, in merely 200 years, gave the world the gigantic new power resources of harnessed electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space vehicles, and all the wonders of nuclear energy.
Communications were revolutionized, first by the telegraph, then the telephone, followed by radio and television. The whole earth was explored from pole to pole, even the depths of the sea. The men left the earth in rocket ships and actually walked on the moon. They sent up a space plane that could be maneuvered and landed back on earth.
The average length of life was doubled; the quality of life was tremendously enhanced. Homes, food, textiles, communications, transportation, central heating, central cooling, world travel, millions of books, a high literacy rate, schools for everybody, surgical miracles, medical cures for age-old diseases, entertainment at the touch of a switch, and instant news, twenty four hours a day.
Of course all of this did not happen just in American, but it did flow out primarily from the swift current of freedom and prosperity which the American founders turned loose into the spillways of human progress all over the world.

In 200 years, the human race had made a 5,000 year leap.

The reason most men do not achieve more is becuase they do not attempt more.
 
Last edited:

Jackytar

Ex-member
Jacky, your position is old enough and outdated enough these days to be considered fossil fuel. She lives in a country where 20,000 people died last year because they didn't have access to health care and where even the government admits 30,000,000 people are malnourished. You can talk all day long about how good she has it compared to the rest of the world, but your talk would make a lot more sense if it was being delivered in the 1950s than in 2009. Being 37th in the world for heath care might be alright for you, but it's really not acceptable to most of the American people.

Health care policy is another thing altogther. I'm fairly well versed in the issues. If you want to start another thread I'd be happy to discuss them.

You can tell me how capitalism is outdated right here.

Jackytar
 

Jackytar

Ex-member
Legislate a minimum wage that is high enough that it is possible for one person to survive with one full-time job, and implement a progressive tax that accommodates all the expenses of public services such as schools, hospitals, roads, parks, libraries, clean water, sewerage etc. without going into budget deficits.

You do realize that when you raise wages you raise prices, right? That most businesses operate on slim margins, and that salaries are their largest expense by far. My wife and I have a business with 13 staff, mostly professional high wage earners. Our unskilled workers make more than double the minimum wage and we provide good health insurance. Why? Because of the labor market. If we paid minimum wage nobody will step up to do the job and be reliable, even in this economy. A very small percentage of Americans earn the minimum wage. We bought a failing business and are trying to turn it around, which means we are losing money - a lot of money - that we may never recover. Any sympathy for me?

Jackytar
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
The reason most men do not achieve more is becuase they do not attempt more.

As I have presented...

where one man earns nearly 1000 times more than another.... (along with MANY other factors we wont even consider at this very moment)

I think there is a little bit more than needing to "attempt"

not wanting to be a whiney moose licker, but, the system is just plane unbalanced.... bottom line.

Are you aware for example, in 1978 the average CEO earned just under 100 times than the minimum wage worker.... 30 years later that has become 10 times bigger...

Going by this, by the time I am infirm, the avwerage worker will be paid in lima beans..........

And yet people point to the likes of communist countries for economic disparities; you know, y'all need to look at your own back yards...... but of course that would require effort and becoming informed.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
You do realize that when you raise wages you raise prices, right? That most businesses operate on slim margins, and that salaries are their largest expense by far. My wife and I have a business with 13 staff, mostly professional high wage earners. Our unskilled workers make more than double the minimum wage and we provide good health insurance. Why? Because of the labor market. If we paid minimum wage nobody will step up to do the job and be reliable, even in this economy. A very small percentage of Americans earn the minimum wage. We bought a failing business and are trying to turn it around, which means we are losing money - a lot of money - that we may never recover. Any sympathy for me?

Jackytar

If CEOs and other 1% actually earned less this would not be an issue....
You are stating it as though wages raised needs to be done in isolation.

Distrabution of wealth requires more than just paying the lowest more....

Maybe Obama will actually make a difference here...
I won't hold my breath though
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
We bought a failing business and are trying to turn it around, which means we are losing money - a lot of money - that we may never recover. Any sympathy for me?

Jackytar

Sympathy?

Yes, for being one of the stupid people who advocate the values you do, whilst living the reality you do.....

I have sympathy for your stupidity
 

Jackytar

Ex-member
If CEOs and other 1% actually earned less this would not be an issue....
You are stating it as though wages raised needs to be done in isolation.

No. I see overall prosperity as being more important than income disparity. We have a recession now, and the disparity will narrow dramatically as a result of the stock market correction. Does this make the poor happy? Are they out dancing in the streets because income disparity is on the wane? No. They want jobs. They would prefer a booming economy even if the rich get richer.:eek:

Jackytar
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
No. I see overall prosperity as being more important than income disparity. We have a recession now, and the disparity will narrow dramatically as a result of the stock market correction. Does this make the poor happy? Are they out dancing in the streets because income disparity is on the wane? No. They want jobs. They would prefer a booming economy even if the rich get richer.:eek:

Jackytar

the main reason why we have a recession is the overall wealth is in fewer hands...

how will the stock market correction change this?

please do explain
 

Alceste

Vagabond
You do realize that when you raise wages you raise prices, right? That most businesses operate on slim margins, and that salaries are their largest expense by far. My wife and I have a business with 13 staff, mostly professional high wage earners. Our unskilled workers make more than double the minimum wage and we provide good health insurance. Why? Because of the labor market. If we paid minimum wage nobody will step up to do the job and be reliable, even in this economy. A very small percentage of Americans earn the minimum wage. We bought a failing business and are trying to turn it around, which means we are losing money - a lot of money - that we may never recover. Any sympathy for me?

Jackytar

You are assuming that if a business with CEOs making salaries in the tens of millions paid their toilet cleaners a living wage, it would not result in a lowering of their own salaries to compensate for the change. Of course they will lower their own salaries rather than raise their prices above market levels. Otherwise they will not be able to compete.

The "raising prices" canard is a favourite of free market propagandists because they honestly believe the idea of paying a bit more for our junk scares the crap out of people who are primarily motivated by ethical rather than material considerations. In fact, I pay quite a bit more for electricity through a 100 % green energy supplier - a company that doesn't deal in non-renewables at all (rather than a greenwashed offshoot of a coal energy supplier.) I pay more for organic food and support local businesses instead of shopping at Walmart. Paying more for my junk is an acceptable side effect of making ethical consumer choices, even if it means I end up with less of it. The voting we do with our dollars is the only vote we have that counts, so I choose carefully.

Capitalists would do well to take note of the above, since there are some serious bucks to be made by pitching products to people like me. The drawback is that you have to actually have an ethical product to pitch in the first place.

BTW, I do have sympathy for you. Socialism is not stingy with the sympathy - everybody gets some. If you do end up losing all your money and you and your wife go bust, you should not have to live in the back of your car or be denied necessary medical care because of a lack of funds, and any children you might have should not be denied an education and 3 square meals just because you can't afford to provide it for them. There is more than enough to go around to tide you and your family over if your business fails, but not in a pure free market system. There is no profit to be made from feeding and housing the hungry children of bankrupt parents.

By the way, "a very small percentage of Americans are on minimum wage salaries" is an example of a free market advocate being either intentionally misleading or incorrect. Of the 60.1 % of Americans earning hourly wages, 2.5 % are earning at or below the federal minimum wage of five measly bucks an hour. That's 1.5 % of all American workers. I suppose "small" is a matter of opinion.

So, which is it? Is a minimum wage increase going to raise prices because the cost of doing business will increase, or is it "only a very small percentage" of Americans who will be affected? You can't use both arguments - you have to pick one. Either there are so many of them that paying a living wage will mean I have to pay extra for everything, or there are so few of them that it isn't a real problem.
 
Last edited:

Jackytar

Ex-member
Are you aware for example, in 1978 the average CEO earned just under 100 times than the minimum wage worker.... 30 years later that has become 10 times bigger....

Are you aware that these stats (and I use that term lightly in the case of your statements) are gleaned form IRS records? And that when you change the tax rules executives are more likely to claim more of their earnings as regular income?

Jackytar
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Health care policy is another thing altogther. I'm fairly well versed in the issues. If you want to start another thread I'd be happy to discuss them.

You can tell me how capitalism is outdated right here.

Jackytar

You seem to have missed the point of my post. Or, at the very least, you have chosen not to address it and instead have substituted what amounts in this context to a straw man. Is that because you haven't any idea how to address my point?
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Are you aware that these stats (and I use that term lightly in the case of your statements) are gleaned form IRS records? And that when you change the tax rules executives are more likely to claim more of their earnings as regular income?

Jackytar

irrelivant ...

the gap between the richest and the poorest, still remains...whatever statistic you use
 

Jackytar

Ex-member
You seem to have missed the point of my post. Or, at the very least, you have chosen not to address it and instead have substituted what amounts in this context to a straw man. Is that because you haven't any idea how to address my point?

Your point is that my views on capitalism is outdated, correct?

Jackytar
 
Top