On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 06:26:49PM -0700, gray wrote: > > Minimum wage workers are getting a very raw deal in most parts of the > world at present as far as I can see. It is interesting that Joe > cites the US as a possible exception. Most Australians (and I expect > the rest of the world) have heard stories of the income received by > WALMART attendants and other US minimum wagers. Those are jobs that don't require *any* skill whatsoever beyond "stand here and don't fall over". > Myself and my friends > have also experienced first hand, as teenage workers, the union > busting tactics of US multinationals such as McDonalds. Could that be because in many cases unions have *far* outlived their usefulness? In many cases, they "force" workers to pay their dues to support politcal causes which the individual worker may not even like. They also support such wonderfully productivity enhancing practices like keeping on dead weight, not paying people based on performance breeding an entitlement mentality. Heck, I don't blame them one bit for not wanting their workers to unionize. Note, I don't condone illegal activity on that front (in which I'm sure some of those companies have engaged). However, I can completely understand their position. > There is also > the phenomenon of economic deprivation forcing people into the US army > which I have heard about. Umm, I thouroughly debunked this a while back. People join the military because they *want* to. Now, sure there some people who screw up, get in trouble and stand before a judge who says "Army or jail" and you *might* be able to argue that in a way that is "forced". But it would still be a tough sell. See the military needs enthusiastic, educated individuals. That is why they are having such a hard time recruiting people. Many people still think, "well, I have nothing else so I guess I'll go into the military." Generally, those people are useless to the military. > Without broadening the Offtopic too much > this is one of many reasons why the US is distrusted globally as a > social and political system to emulate: if the US can't even treat its > own citizens well... Acutally, I thought the US was distrusted globally because it is cool to hate the "big guy." Just like today it is cool to hate Microsoft. Before them it was IBM, and before them Ma Bell and Standard Oil. There will always be someone to hate. Before the US was "hated" as it is today, it was England and before them probably some other European colonial power and before them the Moors and before them the Romans and before them the Greeks. > Anyway I know this was a favourite topic of > propaganda in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War - but that does > mean here and now that it is false. > Do you mean *not* false? > > > > Interesting observation. I agree that there are workers in the labor > > market needed, and certain jobs are not desirable for educated people, > > so one could argue that it is better to purposely not educate a certain > > number of people so that the only benefit they will have for society is > > their unskilled labor. IMO, it's not a very attractive policy. > > 'not attractive' is to put it a bit over-mildly I think. Many of > those certain jobs are not attractive regardless of education. > > > The problem is not a simple one to solve, because everyone should have > > the right to board and housing, but someone has to pay for it. > I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Everyone has a right (at least in the US) to the "pursuit of happiness." It is not the right "to have happiness provided by the government." Essentially, you are advocating the latter. The person who should pay for your room and board is *you*. If a charity wants to help you or support you, that's great. But it is not the government's job. > Empty slogan. Not to say there is no content here but that is a VERY > big topic. The art of economics is precisely that and anyone who > thinks it is a science has been brainwashed by one of the many camps > of economists who claim to have found the 'true path'. As my friend > Bob Dylan ironised (now I really am sounding like an old hippy) 'If > dogs run free then why can't we across the sweeping plains'. He was > referring, at least a bit, to the biblical parable about the lilies of > the fields not needing to pay for their clothes. The truth on this > topic is hugely more complex than 'someone has to pay for it'. With > due respect. > Not really. That someone is the individual. > > > > I remember learning in my youth that "Nothing is free, somebody, > > somewhere pays for what you get for nothing." Even the air we breathe > > costs money because there are people who monitor it, and that costs > > money. However, we don't individually have to pay for it (yet). > > you should question what you learned in your youth. Perhaps > everything is paid for already. I was taught in my youth that 'people > only ever steal from greed - not from need'. It took me a long time > to see how ridiculous this statement is: the sort of bullshit fed to > young-uns on a daily basis. Perhaps if I was a catholic I would have > been given 'the lilies of the field' instead. > These things, along with many of the things that I heard in my own public school education, are why I consider child abuse to put a child into public school. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature