Re: Agree or Disagree?

by Naked Snake 12/28/2010, 7:15 pm

Mercy wrote:I'm not talking about having minimum wage as a living wage. That doesn't make sense. Of course you can't live on your own on $3 an hour, but for people who are trying to find a job, they're required to pay them a high wage without knowing how they really work in their business. If you perform well than they can give you raises and offer you higher positions.

Eight dollars an hour is not a "high wage."

And if you think it is, then you have absolutely no concept of money. Or why there is a minimum wage in the first place. Protip: It has nothing to do with tree-hugging America-hating socialists offering handouts to lazy bastards who are only poor and unemployed because they don't vote Republican.

by **Vandal** 12/29/2010, 11:09 pm

Okay well would you have a problem with minimum wage being $20? What about $50?

by Naked Snake 12/30/2010, 1:17 am

Mercy wrote:Okay well would you have a problem with minimum wage being $20? What about $50?

But it isn't! And it never would be! Where the bloody backstroke are you getting this nonsense from? Are you just tossing out hypotheticals so that I can find new and exciting ways to sarcastically throw them back at you, or do you honestly believe that there is a push by that guddurn Oh-Bammer and his Socialist Fascist Nazi Reds to make the minimum wage--the minimum wage, established so that businessmen could not grossly underpay their workers as they had been for decades, which you for some absurd reason seem to think is a bad thing--twenty to fifty dollars?!

What are we supposed to be arguing about again? Prohibition? Maybe it's a sign that the question was inherently weak if we've gone from that to discussing wages. It ain't 1921 anymore.

by **Vandal** 12/30/2010, 1:29 am

I'm simply posing the question: would a minimum wage of $20-50 be good for businesses or bad? Why or why not?

by **TheDeceiverGod** 12/30/2010, 2:02 am

Business men would tell you that it would be bad for everything, lobbyists would tell you it'd be good for everyone. Basically what Snake is arguing is that the upper class, the people who pay the wages are the people who have the money, and since they have the money they're not likely to give it up. While people who would proposition for a raise in the minimum wage would tell you that by raising it they would raise the status of the lower class.

The problem with any of this is of course that if the places which pay the minimum wage employees would respond to such a raise in costs by raising their prices, despite whether or not they could actually afford to pay the higher minimum wage and just take a cut to their profits. And since they raised the cost of their services anyone who wants to partake of their services would have to pay more, thus they would be spending more of their wages, which would not likely have received a hike in the slightest, on the same thing that they would've been spending less money on had they not raised the minimum wage in the first place.

Basically, until we have people/machines who can accurately perform anything the lower classes would normally be doing, such as waitressing, for no pay beyond their basic upkeep, *cough*slaves*cough* then we're always going to have a problem with the whole 'minimum wage' debate because in effect raising the minimum wage is akin to raising the costs of the lowest level of services, and when you raise the lowest level, you raise every level above it.

by Xenophobic Sponge 12/30/2010, 3:27 am

Mercy wrote:Okay well would you have a problem with minimum wage being $20? What about $50?

A minimum wage of $50/hr at current inflation would result in massive layoffs and smaller businesses closing down. That is why the minimum wage is NOT $50/hr.

A minimum wage of $3/hr would result in a slightly higher rate of employment, but would overall be bad for the economy because the spending power of people working minimum wage would decrease to well, WELL below poverty. Surprisingly enough, a country where the majority of workers can't afford to eat doesn't score so well on the economics front.

Obscenely low minimum wages also HELP lead to jobs going over seas, as people that make $3/hr are unable to pay for education. The US is already behind here, as many of the top earning companies are going overseas for job that require educations. This year alone, companies such as Caterpiller are building factories and hiring high level jobs such as Engineers outside of the USA, despite being a United States based company. Why? Because they say they can get better educated people for less money. (Source: Jeffery Sachs, economist Columbia University)

Lowering the minimum wage to $3/hr would just increase that problem.

If anything, the US minimum wage should be brought up to match other 1st world countries. This does not mean $50/hr. That is ludicrous. $20 is asking too much as well.

$10-12/hr would be okay as a start though.

*I am not an economist. I have precisely three economics classes under my belt all of which are a few years old in my memory, which makes me far from an expert.

by Naked Snake 12/30/2010, 7:53 pm

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:
Mercy wrote:Okay well would you have a problem with minimum wage being $20? What about $50?

A minimum wage of $50/hr at current inflation would result in massive layoffs and smaller businesses closing down. That is why the minimum wage is NOT $50/hr.

A minimum wage of $3/hr would result in a slightly higher rate of employment, but would overall be bad for the economy because the spending power of people working minimum wage would decrease to well, WELL below poverty. Surprisingly enough, a country where the majority of workers can't afford to eat doesn't score so well on the economics front.

Obscenely low minimum wages also HELP lead to jobs going over seas, as people that make $3/hr are unable to pay for education. The US is already behind here, as many of the top earning companies are going overseas for job that require educations. This year alone, companies such as Caterpiller are building factories and hiring high level jobs such as Engineers outside of the USA, despite being a United States based company. Why? Because they say they can get better educated people for less money. (Source: Jeffery Sachs, economist Columbia University)

Lowering the minimum wage to $3/hr would just increase that problem.

If anything, the US minimum wage should be brought up to match other 1st world countries. This does not mean $50/hr. That is ludicrous. $20 is asking too much as well.

$10-12/hr would be okay as a start though.

*I am not an economist. I have precisely three economics classes under my belt all of which are a few years old in my memory, which makes me far from an expert.

GOD BLESS YOU AND ALL OF YOUR SPERM. YOUR OFFSPRING WILL LEAD US TO A GOLDEN AGE.

I would prefer a $.50 raise in the minimum wage--the extra dollar per two hours of work would be nifty--but the $8.00 minimum is fine for my purposes. $3.00 is just as absurd as $20.00.

by Thecrazykid3649 1/2/2011, 10:15 pm

Next Statement:

Week 11: Men SHOULD be allowed paternity leave.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

by **redeagle321** 1/2/2011, 10:24 pm

Agreed to a certain extent.

Yes a Father deserves a day or two with junior, but at the end of the day he IS still the main breadwinner and has the expectation of providing for his newly extended family.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/2/2011, 11:49 pm

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:Next Statement:

Week 11: Men SHOULD be allowed paternity leave.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

Yes, yes he should. If the mother has the better paying job, or wants to work then by all means the man is allowed to take off paternity leave to look after his child. Why wouldn't paternity leave be allowed? Men aren't allowed to be the ones looking after a child/the household while the woman works?

by Naked Snake 1/3/2011, 12:54 am

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:
Thecrazykid3649 wrote:Next Statement:

Week 11: Men SHOULD be allowed paternity leave.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

Yes, yes he should. If the mother has the better paying job, or wants to work then by all means the man is allowed to take off paternity leave to look after his child. Why wouldn't paternity leave be allowed? Men aren't allowed to be the ones looking after a child/the household while the woman works?

Childbirth is so rigorous a process that being given time off is absolutely vital so that the woman can recover; it goes without saying that having to squeeze a four-limbed object out of your loins is something that demands a lengthy convalescence. The man, on the other hand, is not handicapped in such a way.

Regardless of whether the woman has the better job, if she's still bedridden from childbirth, she's incapable of performing it, which means the man, regardless of whether he has the inferior job, needs to step up for the time being.

At the risk of sounding like ~~a social conservative~~ Mercy, I have to say disagree.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/3/2011, 2:51 am

Well yeah, I suppose if the woman needs a year off to recover from child birth for some reason, she could have it. Round here, Maternity and Paternity Leave are allowed to be split.

I apologize, I wasn't aware we were considering recovery time, I thought we were talking about the total year of time off of work.

by Naked Snake 1/3/2011, 7:55 pm

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:Well yeah, I suppose if the woman needs a year off to recover from child birth for some reason, she could have it. Round here, Maternity and Paternity Leave are allowed to be split.

I apologize, I wasn't aware we were considering recovery time, I thought we were talking about the total year of time off of work.

I guess we're looking at it from all angles. And this is one of those instances, few as they are now in modern society, where there should be a disparity between men and women. Simply because, biologically speaking, women need it.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/3/2011, 8:28 pm

Naked Snake wrote:I guess we're looking at it from all angles. And this is one of those instances, few as they are now in modern society, where there should be a disparity between men and women. Simply because, biologically speaking, women need it.

Very much so yes. But after the woman is back up on her feet, if she wants to go back to work and let the father be mister stay at home dad, that's all well and good.

My cousin just had a baby a few weeks ago, and is already itching to get back to work (I think she goes back in three more weeks). Her husband's going to be taking time off of work when she does, to watch the lil' one.

Granted, they also own a mini-farm... so even with child leave they'll still have some work to do.

So yeah.

Women get the first few months to heal, and afterward if the couple wishes, they can trade and the dad can take leave from work instead. If at an impass, the woman gets first dibs for having passed pounds of flesh and bone from her body.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about child leave as a whole, and whether or not men should be allowed to take even the last month of the allowed time off.

by Thecrazykid3649 1/10/2011, 4:21 pm

Next statement:

Week 12: Torture is NEVER acceptable.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

by **Vandal** 1/18/2011, 1:31 pm

Disagree.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/18/2011, 2:20 pm

I agree, it's a morally reprehensible thing to do, it strongly effects any statements given, and it is against the law.

Anyone found torturing for any reason should be arrested and charged for these acts. If they are caught doing these things to prisoners of war while in a position of power, they should be charged as war criminals.

by Thecrazykid3649 1/21/2011, 9:56 pm

Next Statement:

Week 13: Marijuana SHOULD be legalized.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

by Naked Snake 1/21/2011, 10:33 pm

Disagree.

I know far too many asshole stoners to want that sh*t legal. The less enfranchised they are, the happier I am.

Yes, I'm a bitter old bastard.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/22/2011, 1:39 am

Agreed, making it legal would make it run by the government and would make it taxable! It would be a serious boon for whatever country did this. Not only that, it would take money out of the hands of drug dealers and put it into the hands of employees! People being paid to work! Employment!

Plus, it would allow police to focus their resources on combating cocaine, heroin, and other such more dangerous drugs.

There's really no downside.

Virginia might be decriminalizing soon, so that might be a good step in the right direction as far as the US goes. I'm hoping for full legalization and government control in Canada, much like how they run the selling of all alcohol in the country.

For the record, I don't smoke pot, just in case people think this is just the opinion of some pothead or whatever.

by Thecrazykid3649 1/22/2011, 9:00 am

While legalizing Marijuana would be awesome for the economy, and I while I don't understand why it ISN'T legal when cigarettes and alcohol are, I think the downside would be a dramatic increase in teenaged stoners. Me no like stoners. The ones I knew all acted out and did stupid stuff for attention. And they were so vocal about the fact that they were stoners, it was kind of sad. On top of that, Marijuana impinges on the academic life of whatever teen that to smokes it, because i've never seen someone be a stoner and actually care about school, too.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/22/2011, 2:56 pm

Thecrazykid3649 wrote: While legalizing Marijuana would be awesome for the economy, and I while I don't understand why it ISN'T legal when cigarettes and alcohol are, I think the downside would be a dramatic increase in teenaged stoners. Me no like stoners. The ones I knew all acted out and did stupid stuff for attention. And they were so vocal about the fact that they were stoners, it was kind of sad. On top of that, Marijuana impinges on the academic life of whatever teen that to smokes it, because i've never seen someone be a stoner and actually care about school, too.

Here's the thing you have to connect in your brain. Pot is everywhere, and a LOT of people you don't know smoke it, smoke it. Even the people that go on to university and do exceptionally well. The thing about the stereotypical stoner, is that... well, without the pot they'd still be lazy, not into school, and overall pricks.

I don't believe there's any research showing that a legalization in pot will result in a substantial increase of the use of the product. (If there is though, please link me up I'd like to see it) Hell, if the government runs it like it does alcohol and cigarettes, it'll actually be harder (not impossible, as there are a lot of kids smoking and drinking underage) for kids to get hold of.

Another thing you have to consider is police resources. I cited Virginia possibly decriminalizing it, and they have very good reason to. In that state, and in many states, pot charges make up 6% or more of all arrests. People are going to JAIL, and police are wasting their time on something that is barely harmful, and even then only harmful to the people doing it to themselves. They would be much better served focusing their efforts on much harder drugs, or violent crime.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/22/2011, 2:56 pm

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:
Thecrazykid3649 wrote: While legalizing Marijuana would be awesome for the economy, and I while I don't understand why it ISN'T legal when cigarettes and alcohol are, I think the downside would be a dramatic increase in teenaged stoners. Me no like stoners. The ones I knew all acted out and did stupid stuff for attention. And they were so vocal about the fact that they were stoners, it was kind of sad. On top of that, Marijuana impinges on the academic life of whatever teen that to smokes it, because i've never seen someone be a stoner and actually care about school, too.

Here's the thing you have to connect in your brain (EDIT: This came off aggressive sounding on a re-read, it's really not supposed to be). Pot is everywhere, and a LOT of people you don't know smoke it, smoke it. Even the people that go on to university and do exceptionally well. The thing about the stereotypical stoner, is that... well, without the pot they'd still be lazy, not into school, and overall pricks.

I don't believe there's any research showing that a legalization in pot will result in a substantial increase of the use of the product. (If there is though, please link me up I'd like to see it) Hell, if the government runs it like it does alcohol and cigarettes, it'll actually be harder (not impossible, as there are a lot of kids smoking and drinking underage) for kids to get hold of.

Another thing you have to consider is police resources. I cited Virginia possibly decriminalizing it, and they have very good reason to. In that state, and in many states, pot charges make up 6% or more of all arrests. People are going to JAIL, and police are wasting their time on something that is barely harmful, and even then only harmful to the people doing it to themselves. They would be much better served focusing their efforts on much harder drugs, or violent crime.

by Thecrazykid3649 1/22/2011, 8:14 pm

I don't know what its like to smoke it, but I know some people use it to relieve stress, pain, and medicinal reasons. I don't see anything wrong with it being used for medicinal reasons, but when it becomes your sole method of relaxing, the only way you deal with stressful issues...I personally think something is wrong with that. I think people in general depend too much on drugs like Marijuana. People say its barely harmful, but excessive use of weed can lower a man's sperm count or cause erectile problems, and affect one's short term memory.

by Xenophobic Sponge 1/22/2011, 10:32 pm

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:People say its barely harmful, but excessive use of weed can lower a man's sperm count or cause erectile problems, and affect one's short term memory.

None of which are harmful to anyone but the people that choose to do it. Nor are the effects as bad as people that abuse alcohol or smoking, which are both legal. If it was legalized, they could put these effects on the packaging much like they do with cigarettes.

by Sponsored content