Minimum Wage questions

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Humus,

I find it humorus that for two people that at the start of the discussion seamed quite far apart are much closer in their beliefs the more things are discussed. I wonder how many issues on message boards (and in real life in person) are polarzied, when in truth there is much more common ground. /ponder =)

Definitely. We don't want to just feed people, but we need to provide people the opportunities. It's like with kids in school. Everyone can get good grades with some effort. Some kids however need much more attention and support than others to get somewhere, something the teacher will have to accept. You can't rely too much on each kid's own ability to go forward, but on the other hand you can't just make the homework for the kid either. It may mean however that special arrangement will have to be made to make it easier for certain kids to grasp concepts that would otherwise be hard for them.

I agree 100%.

Same in society

I mostly agree except that we are not talking about children we are talking about adults. As children become adults, they need to take more responsibility for themselves. Education is a GOOD thing. I would think that it would be in a person's best interest and in societies best interest to receive more education. (the more related to job skills the better)

Again, good post Humus. I am still pondering some of your comments. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Silent_One]

indio wrote:

How fast or slow a company will wear you out and how they compensate you for wearing you out is the entire crux of the issue. In my experience , unions have done a good job at ensuring that the majority of members have a chance at making a career out of a job . Particularly jobs that there is a greater likely hood of destroying ones body.

I have no problem with that. Although I don't like all the rules that the union's have I agree that they have been effective in helping their members earn a good living for the work they do.

When I say injuries I don't mean catastrophic injuries , I mean repetitive motion injuries like that are caused by job but not compensated for. Workmens Comp. doesn't pay for repetitive motion injuries , niether does disability insurance either long term or short term. This type of injury is what causes the most amount of work injuries.

Workmens Comp. most certainly has paid for RMI. For example Carpal tunnel syndrome, for which one our office secretaries has. One of our Teamster's is currently trying to get our Workmens Comp. insurance to pay for his RMI (back injury) recurring due to (he says) driving our trucks (heavy hauling-low beds). His RMI was from a previous employeer yet it looks like he'll win his case and we'll have to pay.

One system is as arbitrary and capricious as the other but at least one is in writing and favors people that have the most resources invested in the union. As opposed to the other system , that favors whomever kisses the bosses ass the best which is an ever moving target.

I'm a "company man". Allways have been, allways will be. Hell, I'm am the company. But I never kissed ass (kicked a few!) and I don't put up with ass kissers. Don't want them, don't need them. It's unfortunate that your experences has clouded you vision such that it's allways "us vs. them".

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

indio,

One system is as arbitrary and capricious as the other but at least one is in writing and favors people that have the most resources invested in the union. As opposed to the other system , that favors whomever kisses the bosses ass the best which is an ever moving target.

Personally, if I had to chose what type of system I had to work under (and I did chose), I would pick the non-union one. Why? The non-union one also favors those that work hard and kick much a$$. I cannot compete with someone that has been in the union for 15 years with regards to seniority. I can however compete with someone that has been in a job for 15 years that are not doing $hit.

Unions are not evil, and non-unions are not perfect, but if I had to guess which one I would have a better chance and getting rewarded for my hard work, then it would be the non-union job. (remember, if my boss and bosses boss are terrible, I would change jobs until I worked for a company that treated me well)

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Humus]

Humus,

I find it humorus that for two people that at the start of the discussion seamed quite far apart are much closer in their beliefs the more things are discussed. I wonder how many issues on message boards (and in real life in person) are polarzied, when in truth there is much more common ground. /ponder =)

True, very true
It's often like that when there's a political discussion. If a conservative begins the discussion, a liberal will oppose it, and then other conservatives joins conservative and other liberals join the liberal, even if they don't fully agree. You know, I personally believe that the left/right notion on politics is nothing but a cultural thing, not actually a concept based on anything fundamentally real. It's basically a large bunch of opinions packed under one word. And since they are so rooted in the society today people just choose one instead of thinking independently over specific issues and form their own opionions. There's definitely more than one dimension to politics. There's no reason why for instance just because you are christian you also have to believe more in capitalism than an atheist, and there's nothing saying that just because you care deeply about the environment you also have to support gay marriages more than those who don't.

Anyway, I must say it's usually a pleasure to discuss things with you despite us not always sharing the same opionions.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Humus,

It's often like that when there's a political discussion. If a conservative begins the discussion, a liberal will oppose it, and then other conservatives joins conservative and other liberals join the liberal, even if they don't fully agree.

I agree. I also wonder how much of it is because of the fact that we are communicating with the written word and not using speech. It takes much longer to get a point across with text than it does with verbal communication. I wonder if this in some way causes us to only take the time to discuss more extreme issues?

I also wonder how much, at least the debates I partake in, have to do with how I think. I like to try to cut away as much as I can of a topic and just focus on the root of the issue. I like to boil it down so to speak. I do this for a number of reasons, one is that I enjoy discussing fundamentals much more than specifics. I also feel that I can come to a better understanding and conclusion of a issue if I trim off as much "fat" as possible. Plus, I am always thinking.... always.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give you an example. I was told a story about how the largest diamond was found (well, supposedly). A child was pulling around a rock in Africa, and a geologist saw that it was a HUGE diamond. As the story goes, he told the kid to keep quite, asked where he got it, bought the "rock", and purchased the land and became rich.

I asked my buds if they thought that was ethical and moral. They thought it was. They thought that the boy got something out of it, more than he had because to him it was just a rock, but he could use money to buy something. The man was able to use his knowledge and he got something for it, riches. I asked if the man morally should not have included the boy in more than just buying the rock. They didn't think so and made decent arguments (this lasted for quite a while). I did come to a much better understanding once I boiled it down.

If I walked past a poor boy and he had something of great worth on his person but didn't know it, I think it would be the good thing to do to inform him.

If I walked past a poor boy and he had something of great worth on his person but didn't know it, and if I didn't tell him I stood to gain much, it would still be the good thing to inform him.

The fact that I stood to gain something in the second scenario has really nothing to do with the ethical question of helping your fellow man. The chance of great personal gain can sometimes cloud ones judgment, but once it is cut out of the picture it is a very easy question to answer (for me).

At the end of my life, I would rather be remembered for being a good man than a shrewd man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, this is how I think, so I wonder how much I contribute to the polarization of topics discussed too.

Dr. Ffreeze