Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Looting Wage

Rate this topic


Paul McKeever
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting Paul. I was talking to my Daughter who is going to York U in Toronto and their TA's and graduate students are complaining about achieving a "Living Wage".

She said some of the TA's had kids and didn't have a "living wage". To which I responded that when her mother and I decided to have her, the first thing we did was make sure we could afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Paul. I was talking to my Daughter who is going to York U in Toronto and their TA's and graduate students are complaining about achieving a "Living Wage".

She said some of the TA's had kids and didn't have a "living wage". To which I responded that when her mother and I decided to have her, the first thing we did was make sure we could afford it.

Exactly.

You know, one of the nuttiest things about these wage control laws is that they are wrong EVEN by an altruistic ethics. Here they are talking about the poor, and about living, yet the government of Ontario (Canada) went ahead with increases to the minimum wage KNOWING and ADMITTING that the increases would CAUSE the loss of 10s of thousands of jobs. It's irrational egoism that is at the heart of a lot of these proposals.

I don't know how you do it Paul. I see you on these talk shows and all the people around you make me sick to my stomach with their monsterous beliefs. If it was me I wouldn't been able to stand it. Kudos to you.

Thanks Soth. Imagine how much worse it might have been, though, if I - or someone with similar views - hadn't been their to offer up a counter-argument. We'd probably have been 'treated' to a discussion not about whether there should be a living wage, but about how high it should be set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lady running the show didn't seem to be too socialistic in her views. I'd hazard a guess you wouldn't get that kind of even handed treatment from Hanoi-Jane Taber or Craig Oliver on CTV's "Question Period".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'd probably have been 'treated' to a discussion not about whether there should be a living wage, but about how high it should be set.

Hey, if they're going to impose a "living wage" why not impose a "living like a king wage", or better yet a "living like a pimp wage"? :pimp: I'd certainly prefer to struggle by on $200,000 per year rather than $20,000. Of course the response to this is alway something like "well, that wouldn't be reasonable". To that I say, why not?

The advocates of a living wage invariably think that either God creates wealth or it somehow just comes into existence independent of man's effort. They're thieves and moochers. Good for you standing up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did notice the silence from Paul when the host mentioned the need for programs for the handicapped. Fair warning my objectivist amigos: if you ever do get noticed enough to get into a debate you are going to get hammered on "No welfare for the handicapped; charity solves everything," line.

EDIT: I just realized this was my first post since I left; since then I read atlas shrugged...still waiting on Kendall to email me back about some things I raised with him. I bought AS so I'll be reading that soon too. I find this philosophy fascinating and quite seductive....then again I felt the same way about communism.

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Paul. I was talking to my Daughter who is going to York U in Toronto and their TA's and graduate students are complaining about achieving a "Living Wage".

She said some of the TA's had kids and didn't have a "living wage". To which I responded that when her mother and I decided to have her, the first thing we did was make sure we could afford it.

TAs and grad students get crap wages (exhibit A: me). But this isn't news. Everyone going into grad school knows (or should know) this and plan accordingly. It's not a surprise. Alternately, you can compete for other forms of funding too, and you don't have to rely exclusively on your TA pay. I'd think if you were a single parent and you were in grad school there would be all sorts of people lining up to fund you, if you look hard enough, in the form of foundations and such. And if you're not single, what's your spouse/partner up to while you're doing this grad school thing, mm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: I just realized this was my first post since I left; since then I read atlas shrugged...still waiting on Kendall to email me back about some things I raised with him. I bought AS so I'll be reading that soon too. I find this philosophy fascinating and quite seductive....then again I felt the same way about communism.

The contradictions in Communism are monumental. If you find any in Objectivism, let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contradictions in Communism are monumental. If you find any in Objectivism, let us know.

It doesn't work. Shall I expound further?

Well the fact that you could have a businessman fire a black person, because he's black, and ruin that man's life (at least in the short term) and call it freedom....that doesn't work for me. I think that a laissez-faire world would be much like natural evolution; which is to say nature red in tooth and claw. If at the end of the day non-prohibitive tax on the rich is used to make the lives of people far better off and you call this theft by coercive force...well for some reason or another I feel no moral pangs. None. When someone says its wrong to tax them to pay for someone who is disabled and that they are being robbed (while wearing a suit and tie) I arch an eyebrow and say "cry me a f______ river".

In any case, I feel like Paul was trying to "hide" the parts of objectivism that aren't fun to talk about; its easy to be talkative when the host agrees with you and he bobbed his head on everything she said...until that where he quickly clammed up. Maybe he found it pragmatic to not take a principled stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't work. Shall I expound further?

Well the fact that you could have a businessman fire a black person, because he's black, and ruin that man's life (at least in the short term) and call it freedom....that doesn't work for me. I think that a laissez-faire world would be much like natural evolution; which is to say nature red in tooth and claw. If at the end of the day non-prohibitive tax on the rich is used to make the lives of people far better off and you call this theft by coercive force...well for some reason or another I feel no moral pangs. None. When someone says its wrong to tax them to pay for someone who is disabled and that they are being robbed (while wearing a suit and tie) I arch an eyebrow and say "cry me a f______ river".

In a laissez faire world, businessmen wouldn't fire qualified people based on their skin color because that would make the businessman poorer. Of course the businessman's competitor would happily hire the qualified person and have a competitive advantage over the one who fires employees based on their race.

You may arch your eyebrows at an individual's right to his own property, but I say that you have no right to take my possessions by force, whether you intend to give them to a handicapped person or use them to bail out Bear Stearns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To which I responded that when her mother and I decided to have her, the first thing we did was make sure we could afford it.

Hey Zips. I am wondering how you were able to ensure you would be able to always afford it. How did you guarantee you or your wife would always be gainfully employed, that you wouldn't get sick or disabled (or die), or that the economy wouldn't tank, or that large unexpected expenses would arise?

Not trying to be an ass but people who thought they were secure one day often find things can change on a dime.

In a laissez faire world, businessmen wouldn't fire qualified people based on their skin color because that would make the businessman poorer. Of course the businessman's competitor would happily hire the qualified person and have a competitive advantage over the one who fires employees based on their race.

Again, I'll play devil's advocate. People don't make decisions based on economics only. If they did, we wouldn't have historically seen so much discrimination. People can hold all sorts of prejudices that hinder economic outcomes not only for them but for the people discriminated against. And often large areas of the country can be unified in holding them (the south in the US, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'll play devil's advocate. People don't make decisions based on economics only. If they did, we wouldn't have historically seen so much discrimination. People can hold all sorts of prejudices that hinder economic outcomes not only for them but for the people discriminated against. And often large areas of the country can be unified in holding them (the south in the US, for example).

Of course all people are not rational at all times. However, a Capitalist society where people deal with each other as traders, exchanging value for value would necessarily have far less discrimination than one where the government picks winners and losers, protects people from competition and infringes on the rights of businessmen by regulating those actions that do not violate the rights of other individuals. In the US South the government enforced racial discrimination for years, so that might not be the best example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Zips. I am wondering how you were able to ensure you would be able to always afford it. How did you guarantee you or your wife would always be gainfully employed, that you wouldn't get sick or disabled (or die), or that the economy wouldn't tank, or that large unexpected expenses would arise?

Not trying to be an ass but people who thought they were secure one day often find things can change on a dime.

Well that's easy... I'm omniscient. :pimp:

Actually there are a lot of things that anyone can do to try and ensure that these things don't happen.

For me, I worked really hard and strove to be professional and extremely competent at all times.

When my wife and I decided to have kids we thought... "Hey what happens if X, Y OR Z happens", and that included if she or I became unemployed.

I knew I had healthcare and working in the military I was pretty much inflation proof as far as employment went.

Specifics aside I made every effort to ensure I was in the best possible shape to achieve my desire (having and affording kids). I'm not so sure that someone who knows his job is low paying yet has children regardless can say the same thing.

We also made a whole slew of rational value decisions. For example we were living in Germany, but our having children replaced the vacations on the Costa Del Sol many of our friends took, or the brand new BMW they cruised the autobahn in while we drove our Renault 9 into the pavement.

Many people think no farther ahead than the nose on their face. They want instant gratification and their wants are confused with needs. That more often than not is what gets them in trouble. It's not unexpected events it's not expecting the unexpected events.

Some of these people probably wanted a baby, to start a family early and be the bestest lovingest mommy and daddy on the planet, but they didn't need to, and if they couldn't afford it, looking at the real situation rationally then they shouldn't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't work. Shall I expound further?

Well the fact that you could have a businessman fire a black person, because he's black, and ruin that man's life (at least in the short term) and call it freedom....that doesn't work for me. I think that a laissez-faire world would be much like natural evolution; which is to say nature red in tooth and claw. If at the end of the day non-prohibitive tax on the rich is used to make the lives of people far better off and you call this theft by coercive force...well for some reason or another I feel no moral pangs. None. When someone says its wrong to tax them to pay for someone who is disabled and that they are being robbed (while wearing a suit and tie) I arch an eyebrow and say "cry me a f______ river".

In any case, I feel like Paul was trying to "hide" the parts of objectivism that aren't fun to talk about; its easy to be talkative when the host agrees with you and he bobbed his head on everything she said...until that where he quickly clammed up. Maybe he found it pragmatic to not take a principled stand.

Hey John, you're back! Ready to pay me my scholarship money yet? You never did explain why it wasn't owed to me. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, a Capitalist society where people deal with each other as traders, exchanging value for value would necessarily have far less discrimination than one where the government picks winners and losers, protects people from competition and infringes on the rights of businessmen by regulating those actions that do not violate the rights of other individuals. In the US South the government enforced racial discrimination for years, so that might not be the best example.

Okay, but I don't see any empirical evidence of that. How would people suddenly bridge the racial divide under capitalism? Didn't restaurants around the country pretty uniformly refuse service to blacks until the 1960's, thus directly hurting their own pocketbooks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but I don't see any empirical evidence of that. How would people suddenly bridge the racial divide under capitalism? Didn't restaurants around the country pretty uniformly refuse service to blacks until the 1960's, thus directly hurting their own pocketbooks?

A rational business person does not look at skin color as a qualifier for a job. What is important are the qualifications of the potential employee. Besides, why would a person have a right to a job? The business is not owned by him. The laws today are stepping on the rights of business people by forcing them to accept under-qualified people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rational business person does not look at skin color as a qualifier for a job. What is important are the qualifications of the potential employee. Besides, why would a person have a right to a job? The business is not owned by him. The laws today are stepping on the rights of business people by forcing them to accept under-qualified people.

Do we live in a world where all people are rational, or even most people? The claim was made that capitalism would in fact reduce discrimination. So I was asking for evidence of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we live in a world where all people are rational, or even most people? The claim was made that capitalism would in fact reduce discrimination. So I was asking for evidence of this.

I made my point. But if you have a business man who is not rational it should be his right to employ whomever he wishes to employ. Colorblind or not, it is his business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that nobody would do business with someone after it got out that they fired/refused to provide service to someone based on their skin colour, or anyone who made business with the first for that matter.

However, if someone did decide to do that it's his choice, and up to him to suffer the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that nobody would do business with someone after it got out that they fired/refused to provide service to someone based on their skin colour, or anyone who made business with the first for that matter.

However, if someone did decide to do that it's his choice, and up to him to suffer the consequences.

Right, that is what boycotts are for, they work quite nicely as a deterrent as well, not just after the fact :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but I don't see any empirical evidence of that. How would people suddenly bridge the racial divide under capitalism? Didn't restaurants around the country pretty uniformly refuse service to blacks until the 1960's, thus directly hurting their own pocketbooks?

Publius, next you'll argue that slavery would be viable in today's society. :) This is an old trick, take the prejudice and ignorance of 50 or 500 years ago and apply it to the present.

The vast majority of people in the modern world are not racists. They would no more consider not serving a man because of the colour of his skin than they would consider robbing and killing him outright.

As others have pointed out that barest fraction of a minority that would would deny service on racist ideals would soon find themselves out of business.

Would you support the existence of a racist businessman with your patronage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but I don't see any empirical evidence of that. How would people suddenly bridge the racial divide under capitalism?

How do you think racism was reduced in this country? When you eliminate racist laws and allow Capitalism to work (as was done in the South), people relatively quickly decide that it is in their interest to deal with others as individuals as opposed to as members of a given race. You can never entirely eliminate irrational behavior. I don't like the idea that the government decides who can be a member of my club or who I'm supposed to serve in my restaurant. I'd far rather live in a society where I am free to associate and do business with whomever I choose and I'm also free to enjoy the benefits or suffer the penalties of my chosen associations.

Didn't restaurants around the country pretty uniformly refuse service to blacks until the 1960's, thus directly hurting their own pocketbooks?
They certainly did not in the North where the government did not encourage such behavior through segregationist laws and policies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...