Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: United States President: 2008
Thread: United States President: 2008 [ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 (59) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ]
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 30, 2008 09:09 AM

There is so much wrong in all of your posts I hardly know where to begin.

TA:
Quote:
Of course the poor become poorer because they are no longer getting the benefits that you say they don't deserve.
What do you mean, they're getting poorer? They're getting richer too - because the price of goods is coming down. It's a concept called comparative advantage.

Quote:
I don't understand how people become more productive because of sweatshops.
Comarative advantage.

Quote:
In theory if you have a minimum wage the people already in the factories simply get paid more.
No, they just get fired. Say Person A is making $2 an hour, and Person B is making $10 an hour. Both are working. Then a minimum wage law is passed, setting the minimum wage at $5 an hour. What happens? Person B is still making $10 an hour, and Person A is fired - so no one benefits. If a person is getting paid $2 an hour without minimum wage laws, why would the wage magically rise to $5 an hour with minimum wage laws? According to the market, his/her labor isn't worth that much - so the person just gets fired.

Mytical:
Quote:
See the problem is, only the already wealthy want to remove minimum wage.  After all then they can get almost free workers to do whatever it is they don't want to.
You do realize that abolishing the minimum wage won't make anyone poorer - only give more people the opportunity to work?

Quote:
There was a system like this once..let me think..what was it called.  Oh yeah..SLAVERY.  Simply - "You work for us, or you starve." Yeah, that system works.
Except under slavery, people are forced to work. Under capitalism, they aren't.

Quote:
There are some nations (who won't be named) that have no minimum wage.  In order to just get the basics 'common' people have to work 18-20 hr days.  Sure .. they can quit, but since every job is basically the same..to what end?  Go from one 18hr - 20 hr a day job to another?  Yeah that works.  And since people don't like to, you know, starve there are plenty of people to take the place of anybody who quits.  So only the wealthy and the mega wealthy actually make any money.
Third-world countries are third-world countries. They suck regardless of whether they have a minimum wage or not. And if your skills aren't worth that much - after some searching, you're just not going to be able to get that much better of a job - nor should you.

Quote:
Think I am crazy?  Even now corporations and businesses hire illegal immigrants for $2-$3 dollars an hour.  It is ILLEGAL, and they still chance it, because hey..$2/hr is better then 7, and they make more profit.  When they get caught it may cost them, but generally less then the profit they have made off this.  Now remove the minimum wage thing, and they will want to pay everybody this..or less.  Profit IS the bottom line.
Nonsense. People making above the minimum wage will continue to make the exact same amount of money. People who are currently prevented from working by the minimum wage will get the opportunity to earn money. Everyone wins. If you're making $10 an hour, then whether there is a minimum wage law or not doesn't affect you at all.

Quote:
However, (you knew this was coming right?).  Lets think about a few things.  What about those things that people have no control over?  The person driving while talking on the phone..sure he/she should have to fork over the cash..but what about that 17 car pileup he causes?  That idiot driver gets dead..who pays for that?
Liability insurance?

Quote:
Now..all these companies drop wages like rocks
Why would a person making $10 an hour have their wages drop if the $5-an-hour minimum wage was removed?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito

Hero of Order
proud father of a princess
posted September 30, 2008 09:13 AM

Quote:
Quote:
In theory if you have a minimum wage the people already in the factories simply get paid more.
No, they just get fired. Say Person A is making $2 an hour, and Person B is making $10 an hour. Both are working. Then a minimum wage law is passed, setting the minimum wage at $5 an hour. What happens? Person B is still making $10 an hour, and Person A is fired - so no one benefits. If a person is getting paid $2 an hour without minimum wage laws, why would the wage magically rise to $5 an hour with minimum wage laws? According to the market, his/her labor isn't worth that much - so the person just gets fired.
Sorry to say, but this is just plain wrong and has nothing to do with reality. The work has still to be done, but it is getting more expensive. All workers, even new ones, will get the same minimum wage, therefore it won't help to fire someone. It will probably happen exactly the opposit! If you have 1 worker who earns 10$ an hour, but you could have 2 workers with 5$ an hour instead, you will fire the 10$ guy, because 2 guys will produce more than 1 guy..
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted September 30, 2008 09:28 AM

Quote:

What do you mean, they're getting poorer? They're getting richer too - because the price of goods is coming down. It's a concept called comparative advantage.

Why would the price of goods go down?
Simply the rich would have more money to spend seeing as they are no longer supporting anyone else.



Quote:
No, they just get fired. Say Person A is making $2 an hour, and Person B is making $10 an hour. Both are working. Then a minimum wage law is passed, setting the minimum wage at $5 an hour. What happens? Person B is still making $10 an hour, and Person A is fired - so no one benefits. If a person is getting paid $2 an hour without minimum wage laws, why would the wage magically rise to $5 an hour with minimum wage laws? According to the market, his/her labor isn't worth that much - so the person just gets fired.

But they still need someone to do that task...
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted September 30, 2008 10:40 AM

Perhaps this discussion, interesting as it is, could be moved to the economics thread, as I'd like to know here what people thought of Friday's Presidential Debate, which has hardly been mentioned yet.

Also, is there a healthcare thread here already?  If not, I'll take Wolfman up on his invitation and start one.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted September 30, 2008 10:59 AM

There are several discussions going on here...none of which are about the election.  Time to split them up I think.

And I was meaning more of a rant on how different professionals are paid and how it doesn't make sense.  But healthcare needs a thread too.  I thought there used to be one but I couldn't find it.
____________
Don't assume you know anything
about my position on any issue.  
Best idea would be to ask.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Moonlith
Moonlith


Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
posted September 30, 2008 04:46 PM

Quote:
Quote:
There was a system like this once..let me think..what was it called.  Oh yeah..SLAVERY.  Simply - "You work for us, or you starve." Yeah, that system works.


Except under slavery, people are forced to work. Under capitalism, they aren't.

Yes, the choice between circumstances akin to Slavery or Starving is an awesome choice, ne?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
nocaplato
nocaplato


Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
posted September 30, 2008 09:54 PM
Edited by nocaplato at 21:55, 30 Sep 2008.

Right, so I'm an interested political observer with a particular attitude about the election who's just coming in late to the game. Reading over the last pages (okay, skimming mostly) I've noticed a lot of subjects and a relative lack of discipline on the topic.

Fine, fine, it's a conversation of sorts, which are notoriously tangential.  The topics seem to be focused now on economics and healthcare, both with a view toward the socialist v. capitalist system.  

My first set of questions is, do either of the extreme positions being tossed around on the discussion board actually apply to either candidate?  Aren't the extremes rather a case of 'straw man argument' that cloud the underlying issues?  If that's the case, how is the discussion actually relevant to the two candidates running for office?  If it's not the case, can you please supply authenticated sources, rather than making bizarre claims without substantiation?

I'd love to join this free-for-all, but a little self-discipline might be in order if it's intended to be relevant.

EDIT:  On the other hand, if it's just a soap box to spout our own political leanings, let's label it that way.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted October 01, 2008 12:07 AM

It kind of does apply because of Obama's push for universal healthcare in America.



As for minimum wage I'm not sure.
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 01, 2008 12:11 AM

Yes, back on topic.  The canidates.  First, you have to ignore all their promises.  Most they can not do, some they have no intention of doing, and the rest..if it gets done they will take credit, if it doesn't they will blame on somebody/something else.

So it boils down to this.  Their voting record.  Who has the one that best relates to how you personally would vote.  In cases where their voting record isn't really established yet, then it will be a case of if the other has a bad record by your own standards.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
nocaplato
nocaplato


Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
posted October 01, 2008 01:10 AM

So if the debate about socialism v. capitalism applies regarding Obama's position, is it literally socialism, or is it regulated capitalism?

Minimum wage is a sticky issue.  I have mixed feelings here.  On the one hand, if you do nothing about a minimum wage, you expose the underclasses to status as secondary citizens.  On the other hand, if you increase the miniumum wage you increase the likelyhood of inflation and drive small business out of operation.  Ignoring megacorporations who should be able to make money and support a broad range of wages, what happens to all the low end service jobs that walk the line of low wages?  

In some ways I'm a fiscal conservative here.  Low skill jobs shouldn't be offered wages that challenge the pay offered to skilled jobs.  The higher you raise minimum wages, the less important a job like 'Nursing' or 'Law Enforcement' becomes.  Why go through the pain of an education needed to get these sorts of middle level education jobs?  If it's just as easy to make almost the same amount of money at a fast food joint as it is to enforce laws or sew someone back together, where's the incentive to learn the skills?  You can't always count on the drive towards 'doing a job that counts' if it costs too much to make that dream a reality.

On the other hand, even the lowliest of postions deserve a 'living wage'.  It seems to me the problem comes down to the widening gap between the highest paid and the lowest.  Why should the CEO of a company reap massive rewards while his/her employees are being raked over the coals?

The problem isn't so simple as it seems.

As for medical care, to claim that Obama's postion is strictly socialism seems in error.  If you recall from the primary debates, Clinton's position was more far reaching in who were to benefit. Obama's original position was that dependants should be covered till the age of 25... Caveat His position may have changed.

Still, this is not a socialist position that demands each person is insured.  It's a postion that seeks some sort of middle ground between universal healthcare and a free market healthcare.  

In all fairness, it's also a political position.  Obama is not going out on a limb in any sense.  He's saying that kids and college age students should be covered.  It's a safe bet for the electorate.  One that could be a gateway toward socialized medicine, but a rather small step in comparison.  

All I'm saying here is that the socialized medical system is not what Obama is espousing.  I think this is a political decision because it's likely he thinks socialized medicine is a good call, and it may be a step in that direction.  That's different than the decrying a slippery slope where suddenly every working member of society is paying for those who won't do for themselves.  It's political in the sense that it's palatable to agree that children should be covered.  That's what the very popular SCHIP bill was supposed to be all about.

Self Recrimination:

In spite of my earlier call for substantiation, I'm talking off the cuff here.  I think this is how it's been presented, not because I have any current proof.

I'll dig into this and find some attribution here, at least in the sense of reported news, that supports my understanding, for those who wish to see it.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito

Hero of Order
proud father of a princess
posted October 01, 2008 03:53 AM

I don't think the discussion about health care is a socialism/capitalism issue.

We were not talking about free health care, but health care for all, no matter how much their monthly fee is.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
nocaplato
nocaplato


Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
posted October 01, 2008 08:34 AM

Health care for all would be all but the definition of a socialized system.  Even if it's not "free" it would still be subsidized by the government, which would pay into the program from taxation.  

The distinction between 100% paid by government and 65% paid by government seems too fine a point to suggest it's not socialized.  

Besides, so far as I understand the proposals out there, there is no plan for a universal healthcare system.  Only for one that covers young adults and children.  That's a much smaller slice of the population pie.

Here's the FAQ from Obama's site:  
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

McCain seems to be proposing a much more free market and legal reform approach.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 01, 2008 04:40 PM

If we want to continue this discussion, let's bring it into the Economics thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted October 02, 2008 11:12 PM

Well that's it.  I can't vote for any ticket with Sarah Palin on it.  I can't take another 4 years of listening to "nucular" over and over again.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted October 02, 2008 11:22 PM

Anybody bother watching the vice presidential candidate debate?  I would have but I just don't care what either of them really has to say.  Hell, neither does the media from what I've gathered.  Seemed much more like "let's meet Sarah Palin" time than a debate.
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 02, 2008 11:30 PM

Well lets see..didn't actually watch it, but will make a prediction.  Lots of finger pointing, mudslinging, and avoiding any straight answers.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 02, 2008 11:48 PM

I watched it. The McCain campaign had an interesting tactic - to have Palin quote McCain's debate responses word-for-word verbatim. Which was fine, since it was better than anything she could come up with herself, except that when she would start, she would say "um... ah..." and then proceed. But, mostly, she was doing okay, except for calling General McNeill (the former US commander in Afghanistan) General McClellan (a failed Civil War general). Then, towards the end of the debate, she dropped her act, turned to Biden, and said, "Gosh, doggone it, there you go again!" and from then on, she resembled Miss Teen South Carolina to an extent. She started absolutely failing from that point on, and Biden pwned McCain (he didn't attack Palin much, for obvious reasons).
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted October 02, 2008 11:55 PM

Sounds like nothing was missed.  I don't know why this country bothers with VP debates.  
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 03, 2008 01:10 AM

Rather VP debates or what Paris Hilton's dog's groomer did wrong?
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted October 03, 2008 10:13 AM

Quote:
Anybody bother watching the vice presidential candidate debate?  I would have but I just don't care what either of them really has to say.  Hell, neither does the media from what I've gathered.  Seemed much more like "let's meet Sarah Palin" time than a debate.

I watched.  No substance at all.  What do you expect?  

I wish for once in these debates candidates would just say plainly what they intend to do, instead of wasting 90 minutes going over their opponents' voting records.  Voting records mean nothing, because there's no context provided, so why bother?

What a waste of time.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 (59) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1338 seconds