Originally posted by King Kandy
It's okay that it doesn't abide by laws because my point was about what's MORAL, not what's LEGAL. Clearly the two are divided on a number of issues.
I find it immoral to tax people at a higher rate because they're more successful, you clearly don't. Everyone's morals are different, we cannot create laws based on this.
Originally posted by King Kandy
There are people w/ PHDs who can't get jobs in this economy.
They're not looking hard enough then or they're setting their sights too high. If a college student like me can get a job paying 15/hr then they certainly should be able to find something.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really, you can do everything right and still end up on the streets.
And? It's still nobody's fault but their own.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, but it's a travesty if a person ends up bankrupt or dead because they got sick and couldn't afford health care.
That is a travesty..maybe their kids or friends or whoever will realize this and get a good education and job to make sure it doesn't happen to them. Or they can sit back and think "hey, the government will take care of me..no need to go get a better education or go that extra mile to land that better job"
Originally posted by King KandyNope, just want them to be able to stay alive when they get sick. If you work for wal-mart chances are you don't have enough money to pay for that.
So you care about people staying alive but not being homeless?
Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum which is considered a logically valid argument.
"If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die."
You're arguing that people who get laid off from a tanking company should die. This is a a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted..hence it's also a strawman arguement.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why else would they have motivation to give them? It's economically beneficial to give no benefits whatsoever.
It gives a greater incentive to the work force to join them for one. Look at starbucks. They gave our health coverage to their employees. When looking for work who will you go work for? Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts? Starbucks is a financially successfull company though and had the ability to give out health insurance. If you forced this onto other companies, they might not have been able to deal with the financial burden (See GM for one..)
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why else would they have motivation to give them? It's economically beneficial to give no benefits whatsoever.
Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does
A smart CFO would also know that it (A loss in short term profits) would cause investors and shareholders to lose interest. Some of the shareholders will sell and some potential investors will fail to invest. This is the primary reason why we don't have hydrogen fueling stations every 2 or 3 miles. No one is willing to foot the bill because stupid dumb ass shareholders are so short sighted.
Originally posted by inimalist
not that I disagree, but aside from laws specifically mandating how large a corporation can be, how is this enforced?To me, given that corporations are run by individuals, setting limits on size would be limiting the ability of an individual to be successful. Almost penalizing someone for being too successful.
It's easy to enforce. You don't stop them from getting as big as they want on their own by selling their own product. You DO stop them from buying each other out and merging.
Originally posted by dadudemon
A smart CFO would also know that it (A loss in short term profits) would cause investors and shareholders to lose interest. Some of the shareholders will sell and some potential investors will fail to invest. This is the primary reason why we don't have hydrogen fueling stations every 2 or 3 miles. No one is willing to foot the bill because stupid dumb ass shareholders are so short sighted.
Don't be ridiculous, that would imply a major flaw in capitalist theory.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
For someone who uses the Zapatista flag as his avatar, you're surprisingly bias against what you perceive as socialist.
Communism is what I have the problem with. You know, what seems like what's going on here...
And there are some aspects of socialism I disagree with to but what's going on here now is extreme and ridiculous and unnecessary.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. A smart CFO will know that less profit in the short term can lead to more profit in the long term. Giving benefits attracts workers even more than high pay does
Originally posted by KidRock
They're not looking hard enough then or they're setting their sights too high. If a college student like me can get a job paying 15/hr then they certainly should be able to find something.
Originally posted by KidRock
And? It's still nobody's fault but their own.
Originally posted by KidRock
That is a travesty..maybe their kids or friends or whoever will realize this and get a good education and job to make sure it doesn't happen to them. Or they can sit back and think "hey, the government will take care of me..no need to go get a better education or go that extra mile to land that better job"
Originally posted by KidRock
So you care about people staying alive but not being homeless?
Originally posted by KidRock
"If people got laid off by a tanking company, they deserve to die."You're arguing that people who get laid off from a tanking company should die. This is a a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted..hence it's also a strawman arguement.
Originally posted by KidRock
It gives a greater incentive to the work force to join them for one. Look at starbucks. They gave our health coverage to their employees. When looking for work who will you go work for? Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts? Starbucks is a financially successfull company though and had the ability to give out health insurance. If you forced this onto other companies, they might not have been able to deal with the financial burden (See GM for one..)
What'll be funny, if/when the Republicans regain control of the houses and the oval and nothing changes in regards to GM, then it will be not-socialist, but good business for America.
Seems to me the Rep/Cons are okay when mega-corps having the government in their pocket, but not the opposite. I don't really see a difference either way.
Originally posted by King Kandy
FACT: There are less jobs in the US then there are people. And even less that require a PHD.
The more education you have the more likely you are to get one of those jobs. If you have a PHD and you cannot get a job selling sneakers at Reebok, you did something wrong.
Originally posted by King KandyWhat part of "doing everything right" do you not understand.
They CLEARLY didn't do everything right if they have no job. If they did everything right, they would be employed.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Letting someone die when you could have saved them is indirect murder.
False.
Originally posted by King KandyWell, on the issue of health care that's my point... Really I think everyone should be able to live WELL, not just live. Like in some Norwegian countries where people can literally have a high standard of living off welfare.
Well, you didn't answer the question.
Should companies or the government provide homes and clothing for everybody in this country?
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, it's not a "weak argument", it's the logical extension of what you are saying. You've said, people who don't have a job don't deserve health care. Which in many cases is the same as condemning them to death or serious illness.
Quote please...
I said people who don't have healthcare should GET A JOB. Or use their job to pay for their own healthcare.
And yes, stating that people who get fired deserve to die is a weak strawman arguement. I never used anything like that so it cannot be an extension.
Originally posted by King KandyGuess what, Dunking Donuts has all the employees it needs because people can't be choosy about jobs in this economy, see the PHDs who have to work in the service industry because there are simply no jobs open for them. You can offer complete shit in benefits and you will have an ample supply of people who will take it. There are many companies who can afford to give out benefits but choose not to.
You're not forced to work any where in this country. You can always go someplace else. Companies are not required to give out benefits, some do, some don't. How is GM and all the benefits and legacy benefits they gave out doing?
Your just such a cheery moral absolutist. If someone's unemployed, it's their fault. If someone can't afford to get treatment, it's their fault. It's not at all the fact that healthcare costs are so high that 50% of all home foreclosures are caused by medical bills or that 70% of those are from people that are insured. It's not the fact that people can't find work because there are around 37 million unemployed people and 1 million jobs. If someone can't afford a classy internship because their being auctioned off to the highest bidder, its their fault for growing up in a poor family.
It's the kind of logic that assumes that it's a woman's fault for being raped because she wore a miniskirt.
The best part is how you always set yourself apart and above whomever you're criticising. Making yourself an elite among the rabble. Every bit the Randyan protofascist like John Galt. Your line of thinking if taken to it's logical conclusion leads to only one place.