Let's Debate Inequality

[Koldo]

I disagree. Funding schools, roads, and other such programs does not put dollars in the hands of the poor.

But it makes so they spend less dollars on services and goods.

I disagree. What you call a social issue that demands a solution, might be what I call a social issue whose problems have been solved.

There is about half a million of homeless people in the USA, for example. How is this a social issue whose problems have been solved?

Regardless of the starting point, the end result should be fairness.

It should be. But it won't and can't always be, because as I have said before, we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair.

That's what we have minimum wage laws for. The employer should not be responsible for supporting the chosen lifestyle of its employees.

The living wage is generally much higher than the minimum wage. Are you saying you support making the minimum wage equal to a living wage? Because if you don't, then the existence of a minimum wage doesn't solve the issue I presented: people working in companies that make a massive profit but in need of food stamps.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...What truly concerns me is a employer that makes massive profit while many of their employees are so poor they need food stamps to get by. In other words: in order to protect that profit, others need to step up to save the day.

...That's what we have minimum wage laws for. The employer should not be responsible for supporting the chosen lifestyle of its employees.

The amount of money that an employer pays a worker depends only on the market price of the labor that the employer is purchasing.

If someone works for you for a half hour with some simple sweeping, that's what you pay for. The fact that you may be more wealthy than him is not relevant. However if you hire an experienced and learned physician who works his *** off for weeks and saves your life then you'll probably have to pay him a lot more than you paid the sweeper.

You pay the market price for the labor that you purchase.

 

[Koldo]

The amount of money that an employer pays a worker depends only on the market price of the labor that the employer is purchasing.

If someone works for you for a half hour with some simple sweeping, that's what you pay for. The fact that you may be more wealthy than him is not relevant. However if you hire an experienced and learned physician who works his *** off for weeks and saves your life then you'll probably have to pay him a lot more than you paid the sweeper.

You pay the market price for the labor that you purchase.

Yep, and this creates social issues.

 

[Kfox]

But it makes so they spend less dollars on services and goods.

Spending less is not redistributing wealth.

There is about half a million of homeless people in the USA, for example. How is this a social issue whose problems have been solved?



It should be. But it won't and can't always be, because as I have said before, we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair.

Just as we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair, we can also disagree on whether half a million homeless is a problem that needs to be solved. It’s all subjective.

The living wage is generally much higher than the minimum wage.

Speaking as a person who used to live on minimum wage, for me minimum wage was a living wage due to my chosen lifestyle. My lifestyle included having no children because I could not afford them, a monthly bus ticket instead of a car, renting a room instead of an apartment, buying used clothes from Goodwill instead of new from the store, living on Top Ramen and peanut butter sandwiches because it was cheap, and getting a second minimum wage job to make ends meet. That was my chosen life style.

Are you saying you support making the minimum wage equal to a living wage?

No. A living wage is based on your chosen lifestyle. That's your responsibility, not your emplyers.

Because if you don't, then the existence of a minimum wage doesn't solve the issue I presented: people working in companies that make a massive profit but in need of food stamps.

What's wrong with a person working a job and still getting food stamps?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yep, and this creates social issues.

It's not that in itself that creates social issues, it's govt. (and bank) manipulation of currency.

 

[Heyo]

There is a limited amount of currency in circulation, but more is printed as necessary. However the amount of currency in circulation does not need to equal the amount of wealth that exists. Just because Elon Musk is worth $250 billion does not mean he actually has $250 billion worth of currency.

But it means that the wealth he has captured is worth $250G. That's a high but not infinite amount. Do that for every person and sum up. Still not an infinite amount since there are only a finite number of people.
So, wealth is still not unlimited.

 

[Kfox]

But it means that the wealth he has captured is worth $250G. That's a high but not infinite amount. Do that for every person and sum up. Still not an infinite amount since there are only a finite number of people.
So, wealth is still not unlimited.

Of course the amount of wealth that currently exists is limited, but the amount that can be created is unlimited. The person I was debating claimed wealth was not created, but was gathered, and the more some gathers the less left for others.

 

[Koldo]

Spending less is not redistributing wealth.

Indeed. But that's not exactly what I stated. The act of spending someone else's money to purchase goods for me makes me have more money at the end of the month, since I won't have to spend my own money to buy them, thus making me wealthier.

Just as we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair, we can also disagree on whether half a million homeless is a problem that needs to be solved. It’s all subjective.

Any debate presumes the existence of a basic shared common ground. If someone tells me they don't think of that as a problem to be solved, I wouldn't be interested in talking about any political and social issues with them at all, and therefore a debate wouldn't even happen. I wouldn't see the point of debating social issues with a psychopath.

Speaking as a person who used to live on minimum wage, for me minimum wage was a living wage due to my chosen lifestyle. My lifestyle included having no children because I could not afford them, a monthly bus ticket instead of a car, renting a room instead of an apartment, buying used clothes from Goodwill instead of new from the store, living on Top Ramen and peanut butter sandwiches because it was cheap, and getting a second minimum wage job to make ends meet. That was my chosen life style.

And what if your ends still didn't meet?

No. A living wage is based on your chosen lifestyle. That's your responsibility, not your emplyers.

What's wrong with a person working a job and still getting food stamps?

We have established that an employer won't hire for a payment that equals to however much value they expect to get in exchange. They will hire you for less than what they expect to gain in exchange. Therefore, the employer can, when making massive profit, increase the payment to a value that is very close to the value generated by the labor. And when this happens, the need for food stamps is significantly reduced.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yep, and this creates social issues.

So we could say that the fact the earth rotates around it'a axis creates social issues and that would also solve nothing. If we want the world better for humanity we must first decide what we want and then consider the costs. Please explain what you want changed with how labor is sold and purchased.

 

[an anarchist]

I am not sure I understand you here. Do you mean that the government can't direct and manipulate the economy properly for the better because we can't accurately predict the outcome of such actions?

Exactly what I am saying.

That is one of the arguments that free market economics uses against the State. Free market advocates claim that the free market is malleable and flexible, spontaneously and naturally changing with the ever changing nature of the economy due to the subjective nature of value.

 

[Kfox]

Any debate presumes the existence of a basic shared common ground. If someone tells me they don't think of that as a problem to be solved, I wouldn't be interested in talking about any political and social issues with them at all, and therefore a debate wouldn't even happen. I wouldn't see the point of debating social issues with a psychopath.

I would caution against dismissing someone as crazy, never to be talked to again simply because they hold a view on a specific issue you find absurd. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we refuse to discuss with those whom we disagree with. That's why I love discussing with those whom I disagree with, and I have little interest discussing with those with whom I agree.

And what if your ends still didn't meet?

In my state, minimum wage is a living wage if one chooses the lifestyle I chose; however if it were not, as I said before; I have no problem with a person using government programs to supplement their income.

We have established that an employer won't hire for a payment that equals to however much value they expect to get in exchange. They will hire you for less than what they expect to gain in exchange. Therefore, the employer can, when making massive profit, increase the payment to a value that is very close to the value generated by the labor. And when this happens, the need for food stamps is significantly reduced.

what about when the company makes little profit? Should the employee expect a pay cut?

 

[an anarchist]

If I drag a dead tree out of the woods and cut it up to make a table and chairs out of it I did not "create wealth". I simply altered the tree's relative value by adding functionality to it. But that required an input of energy, skill, time, tools, and effort. So although the tree is now far more valuable, I didn't "create" that value. I exchanged energy, skill, time, tools, and effort for an increase in functionality.

Using different words for “wealth” such as “functionality” and “value” is not the counter argument you think it is…

 

[PureX]

There is a limited amount of currency in circulation, but more is printed as necessary. However the amount of currency in circulation does not need to equal the amount of wealth that exists. Just because Elon Musk is worth $250 billion does not mean he actually has $250 billion worth of currency.

The currency is irrelevant. It's just an abstract representation of relative value.

If I drag a dead tree out of the woods and cut it up to make a table and chairs out of it I did not "create wealth". I simply altered the tree's relative value by adding functionality to it. But that required an input of energy, skill, time, tools, and effort. So although the tree is now far more valuable, I didn't "create" that value. I exchanged energy, skill, time, tools, and effort for an increase in functionality that others would consider to be valuable to them.

Capitalists love to ignore this exchange of valuable resources and pretend that they somehow just magically "created value" because it's almost always someone else's energy, skill, time, tools, and effort that are being exchanged for the valuable results that the capitalists are claiming they "created", and capitalizing on.

 

[Kfox]

The currency is irrelevant. It's just an abstract representation of relative value.

If I drag a dead tree out of the woods and cut it up to make a table and chairs out of it I did not "create wealth". I simply altered the tree's relative value by adding functionality to it. But that required an input of energy, skill, time, tools, and effort. So although the tree is now far more valuable, I didn't "create" that value. I exchanged energy, skill, time, tools, and effort for an increase in functionality.

Capitalists love to ignore this exchange of valuable resources and pretend that they somehow just magically "created value" because it's almost always someone else's energy, skill, time, tools, and effort that are being exchanged for the valuable results that the capitalists are claiming they "created", and capitalizing on.

If you drag a dead tree outta the forest and make furniture out of it, you have not created wealth unless you sell it to somebody for more than it cost you to make the furniture. Customers create wealth; not employees, not employers. When you convince someone to purchase your product for more than it cost you to obtain that product, that difference is created wealth. History is full of examples of employees, and employers creating products, and nobody buys them; and wealth is not created; thus the business shuts down.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly what I am saying.

That is one of the arguments that free market economics uses against the State. Free market advocates claim that the free market is malleable and flexible, spontaneously and naturally changing with the ever changing nature of the economy due to the subjective nature of value.

Do you apply this only to the government though? Because any person with a lot of wealth can manipulate the market.

 

[Koldo]

I would caution against dismissing someone as crazy, never to be talked to again simply because they hold a view on a specific issue you find absurd. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we refuse to discuss with those whom we disagree with. That's why I love discussing with those whom I disagree with, and I have little interest discussing with those with whom I agree.

I didn't mention anything about 'crazy'.

In my state, minimum wage is a living wage if one chooses the lifestyle I chose; however if it were not, as I said before; I have no problem with a person using government programs to supplement their income.

Ah. So you are in favor of wealth redistribution to some extent, correct?

what about when the company makes little profit? Should the employee expect a pay cut?

If the employee is responsible for that, in the sense that their work generated less value, sure.

 

[an anarchist]

Do you apply this only to the government though? Because any person with a lot of wealth can manipulate the market.

Let me think about this for a bit.

But I did want to respond to the logic you are using here.

I find the often times the criticisms of anarchism are not applied to government (e.g. anarchy would be might makes right (as if we don’t have that with government)).

So I appreciate the logic you are using.

 

[an anarchist]

Ah. So you are in favor of wealth redistribution to some extent, correct?

Pure ones like me are hard to come by

 

[an anarchist]

Do you apply this only to the government though? Because any person with a lot of wealth can manipulate the market.

With what you are suggesting, government would redistribute a majority of the wealth. Am I understanding you right?

I believe it is doubtful that in a free market environment that an individual would be able to accumulate and misappropriate the amount of wealth that government would have access to in a State environment.

Perhaps I’m wrong. A pure free market economy has not been tried so is therefore in the realm of hypotheticals. (A free market economy would require the absence of government, at least, from an anarcho-capitalist point of view).

 

[PureX]

If you drag a dead tree outta the forest and make furniture out of it, you have not created wealth unless you sell it to somebody for more than it cost you to make the furniture. Customers create wealth; not employees, not employers. When you convince someone to purchase your product for more than it cost you to obtain that product, that difference is created wealth. History is full of examples of employees, and employers creating products, and nobody buys them; and wealth is not created; thus the business shuts down.

I had a friend years ago that had been a heroin addict for some years. He told me that whenever he entered a room, regardless of who's, he would automatically scan the room it for any small valuables that he could fit in his pockets. And he always wore baggy clothes with lots of pockets. Because as a heroin addict he had to come up with a small pile of money every day to get high with. And doing this was his life's purpose, from the time he awoke to when he went to sleep ... for years.

When I knew him he was newly clean and trying to stay that way. But that mental habit of scanning everywhere he went for something of value to steal had become ingrained. Automatic. And it saddened him greatly now that he had long forgotten all the people and things he had stolen from over the years. As an addict it was just part of the way of life. The immorality of it never even entered his mind. Until he finally got sober and began to care about something more than just getting his next high.

I see capitalists as being similar to my friend the heroin addict. Looking at every trade engaged in as an opportunity to take as much as they can get for themselves, while giving as little as possible in exchange. Because that's just the capitalist's way of life. Greed is good. Profit is king. More for me is more for me. And never a thought is given to the immorality of it all. They live in the blindness of greed like my friend lived in the blindness of his heroin addiction. Leaving chaos and loss in his wake without ever looking back.