Quote from: Jackalope;222124Bill, I think I understand your position, but I also think your position is problematic.  It's not so much because of what you've said, but about how what you've said stands next to what other conservatives say and the reality of the situation that we're all looking.

I understand where you and Kyle are both coming from, it's just a matter of assumptions.

You're working on the assumption that freedom of choice is so important that we have to respect people's right to make bad choices.  You're saying that if someone makes an informed, consenting choice to contract for indentured servitude, that's their choice and it's horribly patronizing and elitist of others to insist they can make better choices for that person than that person.

I totally agree with you there.  100%.

Full Stop. That is what I meant. Now, we can continue with the other issues.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124But, I also get where Kyle is coming from.  Because he, and I, but apparently not you, recognize that -- outside of D/s sexual relationships --  no one enters into indentured servitude unless they are a) uninformed (i.e. fraud), b) non-consenting or consenting under duress, and/or c) not mentally competent to sign legal contracts.

Nit picky note: Uninformed is not necessarily fraud. You can just not read the contract. But I will agree that being misinformed is fraud and wrong.

I understand your premise, but I do not necessarily agree with it. There are people who sign up, knowing full well the downsides, to come to the US, work for diminished wages, live in horrid conditions so they can send money back to their homeland. Why do this? Because the economies of their homeland is low enough to make the dollar or less an hour they work for worth it. And no, I do not think this is right. It is indicative of a serious problem but again, that is another issue.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124So waving the banner of freedom of choice when the topic of economic exploitation comes up is...well, its obfuscation at best, simply clouding the issue.  It seems as if you are offering up the possibility that there isn't any exploitation going on, that all of these people are choosing to lead short, brutal dangerous lives scrambling for subsistence in ram-shackle villages while the people on the other side of the world who profit off their labor live more extravagantly than close friends of Louis XIV.

No. It was me, making one simple statement and Kyle running off with it. Big difference. Sigh. Look, if we want to talk about poverty let's do it but I was talking about choice.  You "seem" to want to regulate the existence of exploited people. You "seem" to want to do nothing about the source of the problem. See, making assumptions about others motivations just screws things up doesn't it?

Me, if we are now talking about poverty, my answer is again, offer opportunity and choice. I would set up learning missionaries. Small one man operations that can teach the basics of  math, reading and business. I would do so in a very focused curriculum that could be taught in one hour increments three to four times a week. In this way, they would be able to make informed choices. This would affect the supply side of the exploitation. Some organizations try to do this but I think again, close study and customization of the program is needed. A complex problem but not impossible.

All that said, there is not a vested interest by a corrupt, exploitative, self-absorbed government to allow that. So, first problem would be how to change those governments. Assuming the people do not like how they are treated, they need to rise up an effect change. Tall order and not an easy do.  

I have already discussed my rather simple solution to the demand side.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124People make that "choice" because of a host of factors that make the phrase "freedom of choice" rather ironic.  Factors like lack of education and access to knowledge, particularly as regards the law; forced reliance on recruiters to explain contracts, recruiters may lie freely when nothing is written down and signer cannot understand text of contract; government oppression of labor groups that might provide access to legal information and lawyers to negotiate contracts; corrupt governments that allow crime to flourish and create predatory, desperate environment for citizens; etc.

You just do not want to hear me do you. You really would like for me to be the big bad neo-con. I have stated this is wrong. All the bolded ones fall under the illegal/anti-social part. The previous is endemic to poverty and I said what I would do (and in ways do) to stem it. I still say, the root of the matter is choice.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124When the choices are: a) Go work long hours in a dangerous factory for a subsistence wage with little or nothing in the way of rights; b) Sign a contract you can't read and travel illegally to another country to work for a company that won't let you leave the building; c) Take up a life of crime; d) Lay down in the street of some slum and wait to die; then choice is a pretty meaningless.

No, see, this is a defeatist attitude, a victim mentality. I could just as easily quit and go on welfare. I could give up everything and beg for food. These are choices. I am not saying choices are good. I also do not believe life is inherently fair. I do believe we should strive to make our society better, we should have lofty goals. Now, that would be an interesting discussion. Still, on track, you list a series of bad choices. What makes you think those are the only choices? How about, learn a trade and sell your goods? How about revolt against the government? See, what you are talking about is improperly labeled under slavery/exploited poor. Slavery is a symptom. Poverty is the disease. So, why is this country poor? Why aren't there opportunities? These are the questions we should be asking.

That said, I do acknowledge your choices can lead you to a dead end or at least to a hard place. In your example, you have a series of questions unanswered. What is the nature of the area you live in that does not support anything but "the factory"? People need food, clothing, innumerable services. Can you do those. The point is, did you make a good decision before that lead you to these straights or was it maybe a bad one on your part? I fully acknowledge that things may happen outside your control. A runaway cart comes out a blind alley and mangles you. You can no longer work at your profession. Somehow, though, that is not what I think we are talking about. This is more systematic yes? So, now we ask about the economy, the government, business practices, laws and societal norms. A complex issue but again, one that could be solved if action is taken. Now, this is related only distantly to my original statement on choice but more to my statements on opportunities. Also, it broaches another subject on the role of governments, the responsibility of society to its members and businesses to their employees.

So, I have digressed quite a bit but hopefully addressed why I am a "heartless fuck".

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;222086That's not a decent living wage?

That's a big problem with the whole concept of a "decent living wage"?  Who gets to decide what that means exactly?

Quote from: John Morrow;222172That's a big problem with the whole concept of a "decent living wage"?  Who gets to decide what that means exactly?

There are established methods and indexes of calculating living wage based on present cost of living, value of local currency, etc.

Is there one of those fancy Latin terms for "suggesting an issue is cloudier than it actually is"?

Quote from: J Arcane;222174There are established methods and indexes of calculating living wage based on present cost of living, value of local currency, etc.

And given that those methods make all sorts of subjectivve assumptions about standards of living and living costs, it's hardly that simple, nor do they account for the effects that a "living wage" would have on the assumptions used to calculate it.

For example, one comprehensive site that I looked at here made all sorts of odd assumptions that I'd question, including the assumption that single people live alone and have to be responsible for maintaining a residence on their own, that two adults will have only one wage earner even if they don't have children, and so on.  Another site pegged their living wage to 130% of the average rent but ignores the impact that a "living wage" have on the prevailing rent, since rent is significantly determined by supply and demand.  

And in those places where a "living wage" has been implemented in the US, the average income rises slightly but the unemployment rate, particularly among the bottom end of the employment ladder, goes up (much as you see in Europe).  Why?  Because certain jobs just become uneconomical to pay someone for if they cost more.  Roughly speaking, it might be worth it for me to pay someone $20 to mow my lawn and save me an hour or two but it may not be worth $30 or $40 for me, at which point I'll do it myself.  There are a lot of service jobs that are paid minimum wage that do services that people could do without if they cost more.  And let's not forget that the people earning the "living wage" will have to pay those higher costs so that other people can earn a "living wage".  And do we also owe the people who don't work because of this a "living wage" on unemployment?  And if unemployed people can live more comfortably, doesn't that weaken their incentive to find work?

That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs. Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat. Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs. Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat. Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

Gee, Dan, I may lose my "heartless fuck" status but I agree with you. I think it should be limited in the vast majority of cases, say 6 months to a year, enough to get you back on your feet and working. In some cases, yes, you should have a means for permanently aiding the disabled of your society. That said, I do not think it is something a person should be proud of or think of it as normal and nothing to be ashamed of. There is something to be said of earing you own way and being proud of it. If, societally, you make a career welfare system that your members can be a part of and believe they are contributing, well, I think you have a problem. Now, I personally think disabled people and  elderly should be under a separate system from the unemployed. It is one thing to be permanently disabled and an entirely different thing to be down on your luck.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;222196Gee, Dan, I may lose my "heartless fuck" status but I agree with you. I think it should be limited in the vast majority of cases, say 6 months to a year, enough to get you back on your feet and working. In some cases, yes, you should have a means for permanently aiding the disabled of your society. That said, I do not think it is something a person should be proud of or think of it as normal and nothing to be ashamed of. There is something to be said of earing you own way and being proud of it. If, societally, you make a career welfare system that your members can be a part of and believe they are contributing, well, I think you have a problem. Now, I personally think disabled people and  elderly should be under a separate system from the unemployed. It is one thing to be permanently disabled and an entirely different thing to be down on your luck.

Bill

Simple unemployment is much easier to police, really. In the UK, if, within 6 months, you do not provide evidence that the social welfare people are convinced you've been looking for work (ie, rejection letters, job appliactions etc), then you have the choice of loosing your benifit or being placed on a training course or job of their choice.

Unfortunately, it's disability benifit that sees the greatest amount of fraud. It's a bit of a stigma, to begin with, telling someone they're 'not really sick' and as seen above, if you try to clamp down on the fraudsters, the genuinly needy are tarred with the same brush. Disability is where the problem is, or 'on the sick' as disreputable types call it.

Quote from: John Morrow;222194And given that those methods make all sorts of subjectivve assumptions about standards of living and living costs, it's hardly that simple, nor do they account for the effects that a "living wage" would have on the assumptions used to calculate it.

For example, one comprehensive site that I looked at here made all sorts of odd assumptions that I'd question, including the assumption that single people live alone and have to be responsible for maintaining a residence on their own, that two adults will have only one wage earner even if they don't have children, and so on.  Another site pegged their living wage to 130% of the average rent but ignores the impact that a "living wage" have on the prevailing rent, since rent is significantly determined by supply and demand.

So when was the last time you made a working class wage, Mr. Morrow?  Those are hardly unreasonable assumptions, and in the case of the "130%", is actually a far tighter margin than I would even dream of trying to live on.  

QuoteAnd in those places where a "living wage" has been implemented in the US, the average income rises slightly but the unemployment rate, particularly among the bottom end of the employment ladder, goes up (much as you see in Europe).  Why?  Because certain jobs just become uneconomical to pay someone for if they cost more.  Roughly speaking, it might be worth it for me to pay someone $20 to mow my lawn and save me an hour or two but it may not be worth $30 or $40 for me, at which point I'll do it myself.  There are a lot of service jobs that are paid minimum wage that do services that people could do without if they cost more.  And let's not forget that the people earning the "living wage" will have to pay those higher costs so that other people can earn a "living wage".  And do we also owe the people who don't work because of this a "living wage" on unemployment?  And if unemployed people can live more comfortably, doesn't that weaken their incentive to find work?

Replace "living wage" with "minimum wage" and I've been hearing the same bloody arguments as long as I've been old enough to understand them, and I've yet to see the economy collapse from a minimum wage hike, no matter how much the business sector wants to go Chicken Little over some poor schlub getting an extra few cents or few dollars an hour.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222198Simple unemployment is much easier to police, really. In the UK, if, within 6 months, you do not provide evidence that the social welfare people are convinced you've been looking for work (ie, rejection letters, job appliactions etc), then you have the choice of loosing your benifit or being placed on a training course or job of their choice.

Unfortunately, it's disability benifit that sees the greatest amount of fraud. It's a bit of a stigma, to begin with, telling someone they're 'not really sick' and as seen above, if you try to clamp down on the fraudsters, the genuinly needy are tarred with the same brush. Disability is where the problem is, or 'on the sick' as disreputable types call it.

It would seem problematic from several points. First would be the formidable issue of definition. Who is disabled? Depending on your own life view, it could be limited to physically unable to move and maybe not even then. Alternatively, in the broadest sense, it could be if you are eliminated from any possible job despite being able to do many viable professions. For instance, my brother is color blind. Would he be disabled? So, yeah, out the gate we have issues. Follow that up with fraud as you mentioned and it gets sticky. So, tight regulation is needed but it must also be tempered with compassion. Again, and this might be unpopular, I still believe it should be an opportunity oriented program. Get as many working as possible. Not to torture them but to help with self image, self reliability and integration in society. This would also help decrease case load and thus allow closer attention to individual cases remaining.

Now, note, I am no expert in these matter and am speaking generally. For all I know, this is the way it works now.

Bill

Quote from: J Arcane;222206So when was the last time you made a working class wage, Mr. Morrow?  Those are hardly unreasonable assumptions, and in the case of the "130%", is actually a far tighter margin than I would even dream of trying to live on.

The 130% assumes you are living alone.  When I first graduated college, I had 4 roommates and made so little that I paid about a fifth of my take-home pay on commuting costs.  Then I got married and shared the rent with my wife.  And the single people I know all had roommates.  Why should the default assumption be a single person maintaining the rent on their own?

As for the last time I made a working class wage, it's been a while because I understood that the goal shouldn't be to do a job that any unskilled schmuck half your age can do just as well as you can for your entire adult life.  

Quote from: J Arcane;222206Replace "living wage" with "minimum wage" and I've been hearing the same bloody arguments as long as I've been old enough to understand them, and I've yet to see the economy collapse from a minimum wage hike, no matter how much the business sector wants to go Chicken Little over some poor schlub getting an extra few cents or few dollars an hour.

The economy hasn't collapsed from a minimum wage hike because there has never been one as high as the "living wage" advocates support.  But you can compare the unemployment rates and demographics in cities that have implemented a "llving wage" in the United States and the rates and demographics in countries in Europe that have implemented policies that make hiring employees very expensive and see the effect in action.  A "living wage" (the topic we are talking about here -- nice attempt to change the subject, though) would be substantially higher than the current minimum wage.  And if you really think working class people are worth a few extra dollars per hour, feel free to tip the working class employees whose labor you utilize a few extra dollars the next time you buy prepared food, buy groceries, get your hair cut, etc.  How much to you tip when you eat at a restaurant or get your hair cut?  There is nothing stopping you from giving working-class people more money out of your own pocket, rather than forcing other people to pay for it.  It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.  (That heartless rich talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is known to drop up to $5,000 tips at restaurants that he eats at, by the way.)

Quote from: John Morrow;222219And if you really think working class people are worth a few extra dollars per hour, feel free to tip the working class employees whose labor you utilize a few extra dollars the next time you buy prepared food, buy groceries, get your hair cut, etc.  How much to you tip when you eat at a restaurant or get your hair cut?  There is nothing stopping you from giving working-class people more money out of your own pocket, rather than forcing other people to pay for it.  It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.  (That heartless rich talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is known to drop up to $5,000 tips at restaurants that he eats at, by the way.)

Translated from Asshole:

"Why pay people enough money to thrive?  They should be happy with whatever bread crumbs wealthier people toss their way."

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs.

...with a sense of entitlement.  Yes.  It happens.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

No, the better off should help them get out of poverty.  People support children, dependents, pets, and slaves and that's exactly what the poor become when they are simply supported.  People should not be encouraged to exist like potted plants.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat.

Unfortunately, while it sounds easy and reasonable to separate the deserving from the undeserving, it's not so simple when you try to institutionalize it and but bureaucrats in charge of making the decision.  Bear in mind that I've worked in government and have seen how these things work from the inside.  Impersonal bureaucracies are not the best way to help anyone do anything.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

I agree that those truly in need should be taken care of and I do support some sort of safety net for people like the truly disabled or needy.  But I don't think that means we can disregard the abuse of benefits and ignore it.  And destroying families and trapping people in poverty is every bit as much of a travesty of justice as not helping a needy person.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

In my experience, conservatives are not opposed to giving help to the disadvantaged, they are opposed to the government doing it and making it mandatory.  And they also realize that the rich do help those with less when they start businesses, make purchases of big-ticket items that require a lot of craftsmanship to manufacture, and hire staff to take care of their property and family.  If nobody was wealthy enough to buy a yacht, then nobody would have skilled work as a yacht builder.

Quote from: Jackalope;222224"Why pay people enough money to thrive?  They should be happy with whatever bread crumbs wealthier people toss their way."

Translation from Asshole:

"I love the idea of spending other people's money to impersonally help those in need but I'm too selfish and useless to earn and spend my own money and spend my own time to help them."

Quote from: John Morrow;222228Translation from Asshole:

"I love the idea of spending other people's money to impersonally help those in need but I'm too selfish and useless to earn and spend my own money and spend my own time to help them."

Yeah, except I never suggested anything of the sort, whereas you actually were asshole enough to suggest that poverty can be overcome by tipping better.

I don't actually support spending other people's money John.  I support shooting rich people in the head and taking their stuff.  I'll take warfare over welfare any day.  All welfare does is help secure the position of all those assholes who already have the money and the power.

Quote from: Jackalope;222236Yeah, except I never suggested anything of the sort, whereas you actually were asshole enough to suggest that poverty can be overcome by tipping better.

Why do you find it more preferable (and realistic) to overcome poverty by requiring employers to pay their employees more involuntarily, which will inevitably lead to them passing those costs on to their customers (or will encourage them to hire fewer workers, especially at the unskilled level), instead of those customers voluntarily paying those employees extra for their services?  You do realize that requiring businesses to spend more money inevitably gets passed on to consumers, making it a sort of sales tax, one of the most regressive forms of taxation there is, right?

But my main point is that if you really believe that checkout clerks, food service workers, stocking clerks, waiters, landscapers, and so on are worth more than they are being paid, then why don't you just give them some extra money yourself?  Tip them 50% of your bill.  Slip them a $5.  Give them some of your money.

Quote from: Jackalope;222236I don't actually support spending other people's money John.  I support shooting rich people in the head and taking their stuff.  I'll take warfare over welfare any day.  All welfare does is help secure the position of all those assholes who already have the money and the power.

Yeah, that's worked out well every time it's been tried (and it has been tried many times). :rolleyes:

You might want to consider why Mozambican president Samora Machel advised Robert Mugabe to, "Keep your whites," based on his own country's experience (90% of the whites in Mozambique fled) even though the whites clearly took and held the best land in those African nations in a situation that would be difficult if not impossible to see as anything other than unjust and unfair, and why once-prosperous Zimbabwe has become a famine-plagued basket case since Robert Mugabe decided to turn his back on that advice and, instead, started to abuse and kill the rich white people and take their stuff.  Large piles of dead poor people often start with small piles of dead rich people.