Oh, and one other point on minimum wage...
-
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them. And any one who doesn't understand that is a fucking communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
worth to them
Anyone with half a brain knows that the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. Dickhead
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
That is absolutely the most ignorant reply I have ever heard. So, just to be sure I understand, because the value of anything is what someone will pay for it, economic tyranny is justified. OK, I get it. Thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
That is absolutely the most ignorant reply I have ever heard. So, just to be sure I understand, because the value of anything is what someone will pay for it, economic tyranny is justified. OK, I get it. Thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
the value of anything is what someone will pay for it
Of course it is. Its called a free market, you know, that thing you crap on about but obviously dont understand?
Stan Shannon wrote:
economic tyranny is justified. OK, I get it. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I didnt say that.
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the value of anything is what someone will pay for it
Of course it is. Its called a free market, you know, that thing you crap on about but obviously dont understand?
Stan Shannon wrote:
economic tyranny is justified. OK, I get it. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I didnt say that.
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
Of course it is. Its called a free market, you know, that thing you crap on about but obviously dont understand?
What the hell does that have to do with minimum wage, which is the polar opposite of free market?
Josh Gray wrote:
I didnt say that.
Well what in the hell are you saying? You're not making any sense.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Of course it is. Its called a free market, you know, that thing you crap on about but obviously dont understand?
What the hell does that have to do with minimum wage, which is the polar opposite of free market?
Josh Gray wrote:
I didnt say that.
Well what in the hell are you saying? You're not making any sense.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Take a deap breath mate. you said "it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them" I said "the value of anything is what someone will pay for it" My point is that the value of something is not what it is worth to you, it's what you are willing to pay for it.
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them. And any one who doesn't understand that is a fucking communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them
No-one is suggesting a level of force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And any one who doesn't understand that is a f****ing communist.
The reds aren't under the bed anymore Stan. Pull yourself into the 1990s, at least. Your statement is ignorant and an attempt to make a broad brush statement rather than deal with the issues. Something like if I said 'anyone who thinks it's OK for society to exploit and abuse it's weakest members is a fascist' Sounds good, but it means nothing. It's a way to hide from meaningful discussion, not a meaningful comment.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them. And any one who doesn't understand that is a fucking communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them.
You apparently don't understand how minimum wages work. The government sets the minimum that must be paid if you hire labour. It does not, however, compel you to hire labour. Accordingly, if the minimum is more than the labour is worth to you, then you don't hire the labour. Nobody is forced to pay more than the labour is worth to them. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if minimum wages worked the way you claim (call me a communist if you will), but they don't. Changing the subject, does this mean that imposing minimum wages reduces the amount of labour hired? It can and probably does to some extent. However, for a variety of subtle reasons, it can in principle actually increase the amount of labour hired. On reason is that firms in their hiring decisions are not only concerned about what they pay an extra worker. They are also concerned about bidding up the wage rate and thus being forced to pay more for workers they already have. It turns out that a fixed minimum wage removes this additional concern and can therefore actually add to the incentive to hire workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony[^]
John Carson
-
Take a deap breath mate. you said "it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them" I said "the value of anything is what someone will pay for it" My point is that the value of something is not what it is worth to you, it's what you are willing to pay for it.
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
My point is that the value of something is not what it is worth to you, it's what you are willing to pay for it.
And my point is that if a employee is worth a buck fifty per hour to me, that is damn well what it is worth to me. I'm talking about the cost of making a pizza, not buying one. For the government to put a gun to my head and tell me that I have to pay more than that, is an overt act of economic and political tyranny. The only possible reason for someone not to see that is bacause they are blinded by the glare reflecting off of their shiney Marxist utopia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them. And any one who doesn't understand that is a fucking communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them.
You apparently don't understand how minimum wages work. The government sets the minimum that must be paid if you hire labour. It does not, however, compel you to hire labour. Accordingly, if the minimum is more than the labour is worth to you, then you don't hire the labour. Nobody is forced to pay more than the labour is worth to them. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if minimum wages worked the way you claim (call me a communist if you will), but they don't. Changing the subject, does this mean that imposing minimum wages reduces the amount of labour hired? It can and probably does to some extent. However, for a variety of subtle reasons, it can in principle actually increase the amount of labour hired. On reason is that firms in their hiring decisions are not only concerned about what they pay an extra worker. They are also concerned about bidding up the wage rate and thus being forced to pay more for workers they already have. It turns out that a fixed minimum wage removes this additional concern and can therefore actually add to the incentive to hire workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The government sets the minimum that must be paid if you hire labour. It does not, however, compel you to hire labour. Accordingly, if the minimum is more than the labour is worth to you, then you don't hire the labour. Nobody is forced to pay more than the labour is worth to them.
John Carson wrote:
call me a communist if you will
OK, you're a communist. Anyone who cannot see that government interference in what a free citizen pays for anything is tyranny, is, in fact, a communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Josh Gray wrote:
My point is that the value of something is not what it is worth to you, it's what you are willing to pay for it.
And my point is that if a employee is worth a buck fifty per hour to me, that is damn well what it is worth to me. I'm talking about the cost of making a pizza, not buying one. For the government to put a gun to my head and tell me that I have to pay more than that, is an overt act of economic and political tyranny. The only possible reason for someone not to see that is bacause they are blinded by the glare reflecting off of their shiney Marxist utopia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
And my point is that if a employee is worth a buck fifty per hour to me, that is damn well what it is worth to me.
The point is, if it's only worth $1.50, then your business model is flawed and you need to find a way to pursue your dream without exploiting someone who, through their own problems, is willing to take that over nothing. You're just respouting your rethoric, instead of answering the comments being made.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them
No-one is suggesting a level of force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And any one who doesn't understand that is a f****ing communist.
The reds aren't under the bed anymore Stan. Pull yourself into the 1990s, at least. Your statement is ignorant and an attempt to make a broad brush statement rather than deal with the issues. Something like if I said 'anyone who thinks it's OK for society to exploit and abuse it's weakest members is a fascist' Sounds good, but it means nothing. It's a way to hide from meaningful discussion, not a meaningful comment.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Centralized political management of markets is precisely what communism is. That isn't ignorant, it is the truth. And that is precisely what minimum wage represents. It is an idea straight out of Marxist thought. It is wrong, it is evil, it is tyranny, and it is economically ignorant.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Regardless of the economic issues, pro or con, it is simply an act of political tyranny for any government to force free citizens to pay more for something than it is otherwise worth to them. And any one who doesn't understand that is a fucking communist.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
You are still free to not employ someone. At least that's what I am told whenever I complain about inevitabilities.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
That is absolutely the most ignorant reply I have ever heard. So, just to be sure I understand, because the value of anything is what someone will pay for it, economic tyranny is justified. OK, I get it. Thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
You are still free to not employ someone. At least that's what I am told whenever I complain about inevitabilities.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!peterchen wrote:
You are still free to not employ someone.
Thats like telling me I'm free to not buy anything the government might wish to regulate. That isn't freedom, that is the abscence of it. Thats communism. If I am free, if I own my own pizza hut, it is no ones business but mine and the people I hire how much I pay them. If they don't like it, they can find another job.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And my point is that if a employee is worth a buck fifty per hour to me, that is damn well what it is worth to me.
The point is, if it's only worth $1.50, then your business model is flawed and you need to find a way to pursue your dream without exploiting someone who, through their own problems, is willing to take that over nothing. You're just respouting your rethoric, instead of answering the comments being made.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
instead of answering the comments being made.
The comments being made are: "The government has the right to impose its values through manipulation of the evil capitalistic markets any time it pleases, for any reason it pleases". That flies in the face of every principle the United States of America was established to achieve. If the rest of you people want Marx, thats fine with me. But I want Jefferson.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Centralized political management of markets is precisely what communism is. That isn't ignorant, it is the truth. And that is precisely what minimum wage represents. It is an idea straight out of Marxist thought. It is wrong, it is evil, it is tyranny, and it is economically ignorant.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
So, in your view, the poor, along with the disabled, should be what ? Shot ? Sent to the gulag ? You apparently don't think society should be protecting those who cannot protect themselves ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
So, in your view, the poor, along with the disabled, should be what ? Shot ? Sent to the gulag ? You apparently don't think society should be protecting those who cannot protect themselves ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
So, in your view, the poor, along with the disabled, should be what ? Shot ? Sent to the gulag ? You apparently don't think society should be protecting those who cannot protect themselves ?
No, in my view the poor should be given opportunity by allowing the markets the greatest possible level of freedom. In such an evnviroment, everyone will make far more, and have far more opportunity to end their poverty, than they would in a more regulated society. It is your philosophy which hurts the poor, not mine. You do not have the moral high ground on this issue. I do. I want to end poverty, by increasing freedom, you want to make it a bit more comfortable by increasing tyranny.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Christian Graus wrote:
instead of answering the comments being made.
The comments being made are: "The government has the right to impose its values through manipulation of the evil capitalistic markets any time it pleases, for any reason it pleases". That flies in the face of every principle the United States of America was established to achieve. If the rest of you people want Marx, thats fine with me. But I want Jefferson.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
OK, I see. The basic problem is one of English comprehension. Fair enough. So, I'd be right in saying that you want to have all mentally retarded people shot ? I mean, that would be as accurate a reading of your responses, as your reading of my responses is.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is absolutely the most ignorant reply I have ever heard.
PS. Thats is both a compliment and real achievment around here :)
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
Thats is both a compliment and real achievment around here
I thought you might appreciate that. ;P
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about