Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gap GuiltFollow

#102 Mar 04 2014 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,649 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Ok, if I'm reading you correctly, gbaji, having the, say, top 20% of wage earners making more and more money each year driving up prices is cool. If the bottom 30% make more money and that drives up prices, that's bad.


It's not about making more money. It's about the government passing a law forcing them to be paid more money. The top 20% of wage earners are earning their wages because the market naturally values whatever they do at that amount. Period.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2014 10:56pm by gbaji


Who or what "naturally values" any individual person to the extent they make as much as the top 10-20%? They could suddenly die and be replaced with someone who is equally, if not more qualified than they are, within 24 hours. They make as much as they do because that is how much they have decided to take for themselves and those closest to them. In other words, it is how much they "naturally value" themselves over the rest of their company.

Quote:
If the government raises the minimum wage, that means that everyone who's wage is actually increased by that is now getting paid more than their labor is actually valued by the market


So what then? Suppose there was no minimum wage at all.

People would be "earning" $0.75 a week the way they do in the third world-- because that is how much their labor is "valued by the market." Millions of people would just have to accept this, working like animals just to save up for a loaf of bread to eat once in a while. These companies would not treat American workers any differently than they do their peasants in other countries.

Typically the response to this would be: "Oh well then they should all just go to college and get better jobs then. All of these people who are fast food/retail workers, janitors, bank tellers, delivery men/women, factory workers, Baggage porters/bellhops, call center workers, Funeral attendants, maids, security guards, waiters/waitresses, taxi drivers-- all of these people are simply lazy and unmotivated, stupid and perpetually on drugs and alcohol. They should all quit what they're doing and go back to school so they can add to the already enormous pile of people fighting for those "good" jobs.

Actually, what I am now expecting is for you to say that they won't be paid so little. Perhaps they will somehow get paid even more! Or perhaps BECAUSE they don't get paid anything, the price of day to day life will go down so tremendously that it won't make a difference. Meanwhile the top 10-20% control more money than ever before. The money has not been removed from the economy, it is just no longer in the hands of the people who will circulate it to places that aren't the top 10-20%. Because of this, the economy as we know now exists exclusively at the top. Everyone else must now resort to bartering cows and chickens, while their underage daughters vie for the attention of those few wealthy businessmen in the area who might give them a shiny new nickle for sucking their ****.

All of this only after the first initial waves of massive and widespread murder and looting, destruction of property and public hysteria.

I am not making this up. This is how much of the rest of the world works already. Why are we trying so hard to make it happen here?


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 11:46pm by Kuwoobie
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#103 Mar 04 2014 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,574 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
And McD's still rakes in a pile of cash because the people working there can afford to eat there!
And they get healthcare which they'll need for eating those burgers.
If they're following the McDonald's healthy living guidelines, they're eating at Subway.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#104 Mar 04 2014 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,866 posts
If you don't like making less than a dollar an hour, you just pick up and go next door. It's just that simple.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Mar 04 2014 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,851 posts
Call them a private contractor and pay them by the widget. It's better for everyone.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#106 Mar 04 2014 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,649 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If you don't like making less than a dollar an hour, you just pick up and go next door. It's just that simple.


I really wanted to fit that in there somehow. I love that argument. It's like we are imagining there aren't tens of thousands of people in each individual city desperately looking for a job somewhere, anywhere --like we are pretending that we still have bargaining power whereas bargaining with an employer today means being fired and instantly replaced by someone who won't try to bargain.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#107 Mar 04 2014 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
If you don't like making less than a dollar an hour, you just pick up and go next door. It's just that simple.


I really wanted to fit that in there somehow. I love that argument. It's like we are imagining there aren't tens of thousands of people in each individual city desperately looking for a job somewhere, anywhere --like we are pretending that we still have bargaining power whereas bargaining with an employer today means being fired and instantly replaced by someone who won't try to bargain.


And, you know, making less than a dollar an hour means you have so much incidental cash to pick up and move your entire household.
#108 Mar 04 2014 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No need to move your household, you just go to the silver mine next door.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Mar 04 2014 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,851 posts
Why mine silver? You can just mine gold instead! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#110 Mar 04 2014 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
And McD's still rakes in a pile of cash because the people working there can afford to eat there!
And they get healthcare which they'll need for eating those burgers.


I didn't want to get greedy laying down all that juicy socialism at one time.

lolgaxe wrote:
If you don't like making less than a dollar an hour, you just pick up and go next door. It's just that simple.


Some people call that illegal immigration, others calling it doing **** jobs real people don't want to do.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 5:02pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#111 Mar 04 2014 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Suddenly, the employer must charge more for the product his workers produce in order to pay the higher wage.
Or, y'know, make less of a profit.


What do you suppose the employer does with that profit? Put it in a vault and roll around in it?


Quote:
A. Employer makes $1 million/year in profit while paying $X/hr in wages. Employees need foodstamps, subsidised housing, etc.

B. Employer makes $800k/year profit while paying employees $1.5X/hr in wages (a 50% increase, in case math befuddles you). Employees no longer a burden on the welfare system.


You're introducing an entirely new/different thing though. Government welfare is a whole different ball game. Here's the problem though. The employer (and all the other employers and higher wage earners) pays the foodstamps and other subsidies via taxes. Does the employer get a tax break for doing this?

While that's a tangent, it does raise another issue. Let's assume the employer pays 35% taxes on the dollars earned between $800k and $1m. So the tax/welfare system presents him with two options:

1. Pay his employees enough so that they don't need foodstamps and other assistance, at the cost of $200k/year.

2. Don't do that, and pay $70k/year in taxes on the extra $200k/year he earns.


Kind of a no brainer, isn't it? I'm not trying to make a broad argument about what wages the employer should pay his employees, just explaining why it makes zero sense for any employer to choose to do that for the reason you stated.

The point here is that the employer should only pay employees more based on the value of that employees labor relative to other factors in the economy. Taking into account other costs incurred by the employee (even tax funded ones) isn't a factor. What will drive an employer to pay an employee more is if that employee generates more value for the employer than the proposed wage *and* the employee might leave and work for his competitor if he doesn't pay him that higher wage. That's it.

You're trying to make this about some kind of ethical obligation on the part of the employer, but that's always going to be a failing argument. Why don't you choose to spend 50% more for a loaf of bread in the store? I mean, think how much good that would do for other people? You don't do this because it makes no sense for you to pay more for something than you have to. Exactly as the employer has no reason to pay more for labor than he has to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Mar 04 2014 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
If your wages increase naturally as a result of your labor being valued more, that has no negative effect. But if everyone's wages are raised artificially, it has a negative effect. Huge difference. This is not about "rich vs poor". It's about how we value things in a market. So if you earn minimum wage and over time increase your wage from $7.50/hour to $9.50/hour, you gain $2/hour. But if you and every other minimum wage earner have your earnings increased to $9.50/hour, you gain nothing. Please tell me you can see why this is true?


You only gain nothing if you're primary concern is relative standing, rather than buying power, which is probably the least important thing to care about.


Relative standing *is* buying power. There's maybe a brief period of time while the economy adjusts to the new higher minimum wage in which those who just received higher wages have a slight buying power benefit. Then it adjusts and they lose those gains. End result is that they gain nothing, and everyone who was previously higher than minimum wage but is now at minimum wage loses buying power.

As I keep saying, the primary effect of raising minimum wage is to destroy the economic gains by those who are just above it. The working class people who have wages just high enough not to gain anything, but still low enough to be significant relative to the new higher wage suffer the most from a minimum wage hike because their relative earnings are decreased. And those are the people we should least desire to harm IMO. You're hurting the single mom trying to raise her kids so you can reward the high school student with a higher wage while working part time at Cinnabon. It's moronic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Mar 04 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
'
While that's a tangent, it does raise another issue. Let's assume the employer pays 35% taxes on the dollars earned between $800k and $1m. So the tax/welfare system presents him with two options:

1. Pay his employees enough so that they don't need foodstamps and other assistance, at the cost of $200k/year.

2. Don't do that, and pay $70k/year in taxes on the extra $200k/year he earns.


My economic plan increases earnings for the majority of the population, gives tax breaks to businesses and every individual, invests in infrastructure, healthscience, emergent technology, and creates thousands of new jobs.

Yours accomplishes nothing but put a higher burden on business owners and the wealthy within the tax system.

Quote:
What do you suppose the employer does with that profit? Put it in a vault and roll around in it?


They pay their executives (in McD's case) $9,200/hr or just over 1100x the average rate of pay of their employees. (including Bonuses). So its more like a dozen dudes locking it in a vault and rolling around in it as I am sure the rest of the executive level makes bank too.




Edited, Mar 4th 2014 5:18pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#114 Mar 04 2014 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
******
43,866 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not trying to make a broad argument about what wages the employer should pay his employees, just explaining why it makes zero sense for any employer to choose to do that for the reason you stated.
Well good news is you didn't do the first part, but bad news is you continue to fail at that second goal of yours.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Mar 04 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Who or what "naturally values" any individual person to the extent they make as much as the top 10-20%?


Um... Lots of people do. Where do you think those salaries come from?

Quote:
They could suddenly die and be replaced with someone who is equally, if not more qualified than they are, within 24 hours.


No. They couldn't. Because if they could, they wouldn't be paid that much. It's bizarre that you assume that employers are universally greedy and unwilling to pay someone an extra dollar an hour unless forced to when we're talking about minimum wage, but then you're equally positive that for some unexplained reason these same people are willing to pay 6+ figure salaries for some employers even though they could replace them easily with someone making 1/10th as much.

That makes no sense.

Quote:
They make as much as they do because that is how much they have decided to take for themselves and those closest to them. In other words, it is how much they "naturally value" themselves over the rest of their company.


You have such a skewed view of the world. Most of the top 20% earners have bosses, who choose to pay them their salaries. The top 20% is everyone who makes more than ~$58k/year. Do you get that? Those people aren't paying themselves, and they aren't cheating the system. Someone else values their labor at that level. The top 10% is all those earning ~$82k/year or higher. Again, this is not just CEOs and "rich folks", handing each other a fine life of luxury while all the little people scrounge around for scraps. These are normal salary earners.

I'm baffled by your bizarre idea that there's some magical group of people who just "pay themselves" in some unfair way. We all earn our salaries. There's no magic.

Quote:
So what then? Suppose there was no minimum wage at all.

People would be "earning" $0.75 a week the way they do in the third world-- because that is how much their labor is "valued by the market." Millions of people would just have to accept this, working like animals just to save up for a loaf of bread to eat once in a while. These companies would not treat American workers any differently than they do their peasants in other countries.


Why do you think that? 95.3% of all earners make more than minimum wage. If what you claimed were true, why do *any* of those people make more than minimum wage? Your argument assumes that no employer would pay more than the government forced them to with minimum wage laws. But that's clearly and demonstrably not true. The overwhelming majority of workers earn wages that are not forced by minimum wage laws.

We could speculate that maybe some of those 4.7% who are currently earning minimum wage might be paid less. But how much less? Remember that the bulk of those people are teenagers and students working part time for extra cash. They don't need the money. If the wage is too low, they just wont work. Again you seem to be proceeding from the strange assumption that there are no market forces which might result in a higher wage than that forced by the government, despite absolute evidence that this happens all the time.

Wages will settle at what the market values them. Period. We know that the bulk of wages already settle to an amount higher than the current minimum wage. There's no reason to think those wage would be affected at all if we eliminated minimum wage. So unless you assume you will always be in that bottom 4.7% of earners, then you aren't going to be harmed by eliminating the minimum wage. Put another way, unless you intend to always remain in that bottom group you currently are not being benefited by the existence of a minimum wage.

Quote:
<bunch of hysteria>

I am not making this up. This is how much of the rest of the world works already. Why are we trying so hard to make it happen here?


Yeah. You're making it up. What you're claiming would happen is insane. Our wages aren't that dramatic. There is no huge "gap" between the bottom masses and the top 10-20%. There's a very steady and gradual climb. One which everyone will advance along to some degree over their lifetime. Again, at the risk of stating the obvious, if what you believed were true, no one would earn more than minimum wage. Yet, nearly everyone earns more than minimum wage. We don't really need it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Mar 04 2014 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:

Yeah. You're making it up. What you're claiming would happen is insane. Our wages aren't that dramatic. There is no huge "gap" between the bottom masses and the top 10-20%. There's a very steady and gradual climb. One which everyone will advance along to some degree over their lifetime. Again, at the risk of stating the obvious, if what you believed were true, no one would earn more than minimum wage. Yet, nearly everyone earns more than minimum wage. We don't really need it.


A very steady and gradual climb.


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 5:35pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#117 Mar 04 2014 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
My economic plan


That's 5 cl of wine I'm never getting back.

Unless I sucked it out of the carpet, haha.

....BRB.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#118 Mar 04 2014 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Wages will settle at what the market values them. Period. We know that the bulk of wages already settle to an amount higher than the current minimum wage. There's no reason to think those wage would be affected at all if we eliminated minimum wage. So unless you assume you will always be in that bottom 4.7% of earners, then you aren't going to be harmed by eliminating the minimum wage. Put another way, unless you intend to always remain in that bottom group you currently are not being benefited by the existence of a minimum wage.
This statistic only works until you realize that you are including people making minimum wage + $0.10 are apparently in a group not affected by minimum wage, which is absurd to say the least. Even +$1, +$2 you'd be hard pressed to make that argument.

I think a more meaningful percentage would be percentage of people working as much as they can, while still being on food stamps. Sure they might make slightly over minimum wage, but they are a clear example of a company not taking it's responsibility to it's employees seriously, and are affected by minimum wage.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#119 Mar 04 2014 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
My economic plan increases earnings for the majority of the population, gives tax breaks to businesses and every individual, invests in infrastructure, healthscience, emergent technology, and creates thousands of new jobs.

Yours accomplishes nothing but put a higher burden on business owners and the wealthy within the tax system.


It's not "your plan" versus "my plan" though. I'm not saying what I think is best. I'm saying what employers will chose based on the current existing economic rules and taxes. Do you see how the very existence of the welfare subsidies reduces both the incentive for an employer to pay his low end employees more money *and* the low end employees need to demand a higher wage?

Again, I'm not proposing anything here (thought I already said that). I'm just pointing out how things are.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you suppose the employer does with that profit? Put it in a vault and roll around in it?


They pay their executives (in McD's case) $9,200/hr or just over 1100x the average rate of pay of their employees. (including Bonuses). So its more like a dozen dudes locking it in a vault and rolling around in it as I am sure the rest of the executive level makes bank too.


You're playing word games. That's CEOs not "executives". There is a difference and a reason why you play fast and loose with the language here. You want to make it seem like there's a large group of "rich people" benefiting at the expense of the poor. The reality is that there's only one CEO for each of those companies. Comparing just to the CEO is absurd. Labeling that comparison as though it's to "executives" is even more so.

Again, there's one CEO. For McDonalds, there's one CEO for 1.8 million employees. So while the ratio of his salary to the average worker is 1100:1, his decisions affect 1.8 million other employees. That's why he's paid more than the rest. CEO pay has increased over time relative to employees because corporations have gotten larger and more international than they used to be. A CEO is responsible for a lot more jobs today than they were 50 years ago.

It's a statistical game. Nothing more. And again, someone chooses to pay the CEO that much. They decide that paying him that much is worth more than paying someone else less. You're free to imagine that in a fairy tale world, this is done out of some bizarre plot to punish the little people somehow, but the reality is that those who make that decision think they'll make more money paying him that much than not. And ultimately, it's their money to make the decision with.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 3:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Mar 04 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Hey guys here is 3 paragraphs where I try to legitimize some dude earning 1000X the rate of his employees. Even though he can take 10x the pay and still live comfortably. 70$.hr@60hrs/wk(-2wk holiday) = 210K Personal Take home (before taxes).

Not a shabby chunk of money. Unless you a greedy ****.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#121 Mar 04 2014 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
******
43,866 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying what employers will chose based on the current existing economic rules and taxes.
I got it. I'm still not sure where you work, but there is no doubt the job you do involves a paper hat and a pushcart of some sort.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Mar 04 2014 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Wages will settle at what the market values them. Period. We know that the bulk of wages already settle to an amount higher than the current minimum wage. There's no reason to think those wage would be affected at all if we eliminated minimum wage. So unless you assume you will always be in that bottom 4.7% of earners, then you aren't going to be harmed by eliminating the minimum wage. Put another way, unless you intend to always remain in that bottom group you currently are not being benefited by the existence of a minimum wage.
This statistic only works until you realize that you are including people making minimum wage + $0.10 are apparently in a group not affected by minimum wage, which is absurd to say the least. Even +$1, +$2 you'd be hard pressed to make that argument.


So what? The people making minimum wage +$1, and minimum wage +$2, minimum wage +$3, etc are as well. What's the point? You don't honestly think there's some conspiracy out there where millions of employees are paid just a few pennies over minimum wage so that the employer can say "I pay more than minimum wage" do you? Let me link to a personal income wiki. Look at the "income distribution" chart. It divides each line into $2.5k/year blocks. And while the percentage in each block does decrease as the numbers get higher, it's a relatively smooth change over time. It's not like there's this mass of people making just over minimum wage.


Quote:
I think a more meaningful percentage would be percentage of people working as much as they can, while still being on food stamps. Sure they might make slightly over minimum wage, but they are a clear example of a company not taking it's responsibility to it's employees seriously, and are affected by minimum wage.


How do you objectively measure "working as much as they can"? Also, this puts us in the strange position of creating a measurement that increases the number of "people in need" by raising the bar to which we grant the free thing. So if I decide that everyone earning less than $30k/year deserves food stamps, now your measurement says that if an employer isn't paying someone more than $30k/year, they aren't paying them enough.


That becomes completely circular. Someone is picking an arbitrary number at which they think is "not enough" for someone to make, setting food stamp conditions to that, and then that is used to "prove" the initial assumption (that it's not enough pay).

I think the problem is that you (and most people) are still trying to demand that pay meet some requirement based on need. But that's backwards. Pay should be based on the value of the labor. Period. Doing it any other way introduces factors which will make your labor force progressively less effective over time because the incentive to improve the value of labor disappears. If the only way to earn higher wages is by making your labor more valuable to your employer, every worker will endeavor to do just that, with the end result being a much more productive labor force, and a bigger economic pie for all. The more dependent workers are on wage laws and government supported union contracts to achieve higher pay, the less pay is attached to productivity, and the less efficient our workforce becomes, the smaller the economic pie is relatively, and the worse off we all are.

It looks good at first to approach wages from the point of view of the needs of the worker, but in the long run, that's a really bad way to do it, and ultimately, it's the workers who end out suffering for it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Mar 04 2014 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#124 Mar 04 2014 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,851 posts
Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#125 Mar 04 2014 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,649 posts
That's quite an accomplishment. Amazing what posting from an alternate universe will do.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#126 Mar 04 2014 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Mar 04 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Mar 04 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


Losing scholar status curtails your freedom of speech...?
#129 Mar 04 2014 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
**
592 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


Lol, if not toeing the party line is toeing the Putin's party line, I don't think it qualifies as constructive criticism; that is just changing sides.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#130 Mar 04 2014 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I rarely bother rating anyone, much less Gbaji but ratings are just expressing an opinion on a post/opinion/whatever. I fail to see how expressing an opinion on a post equates to not valuing "free speech". Especially since everyone runs with posting filters off anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Mar 04 2014 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I rarely bother rating anyone, much less Gbaji but ratings are just expressing an opinion on a post/opinion/whatever. I fail to see how expressing an opinion on a post equates to not valuing "free speech". Especially since everyone runs with posting filters off anyway.


So much for conservatives valuing "freedom of speech," AM I RIGHT??
#132 Mar 04 2014 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This is one of those "Freedom of speech really means I should get to say anything without any negative reaction or repercussions from anyone" things, I assume.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Mar 04 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


Losing scholar status curtails your freedom of speech...?


To the degree that ratings have any effect at all, sure. The whole point of the karma system is so that by rating a post, you can indicate which posts you don't like. This somewhat assumes a desired effect of having the poster not post the same kinds of things in the future. So you encourage more of the same kind of post by rating them up, and discourage the same type by rating down.

The colors and titles associated with the account are part of the same system. You punish posters who post things the majority don't like with less desired titles/colors, even potentially to the point of making them disappear, while rewarding posters who consistently post things the majority does like.

This sort of system works well when rating is based on "useful versus spam" type posts. But when it's "I agree with what this person says" versus "I disagree with what this person says", then it does more or less become a vehicle to punish speech the majority doesn't like.

You honestly don't think people rate my posts down to punish me for posting things they don't like or agree with? It's not like I spam the boards, or cuss excessively, or post random offensive things at people. I engage in conversations, usually in response to subjects other people have chosen. But because I take positions which are not popular, I'm consistently rated down. What is that if not an attempt to squelch unpopular speech? What do you think people are doing when they rate posts?

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 4:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Mar 04 2014 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
To the degree that ratings have any effect at all, sure. The whole point of the karma system is so that by rating a post, you can indicate which posts you don't like. This somewhat assumes a desired effect of having the poster not post the same kinds of things in the future. So you encourage more of the same kind of post by rating them up, and discourage the same type by rating down.

The colors and titles associated with the account are part of the same system. You punish posters who post things the majority don't like with less desired titles/colors, even potentially to the point of making them disappear, while rewarding posters who consistently post things the majority does like.

This sort of system works well when rating is based on "useful versus spam" type posts. But when it's "I agree with what this person says" versus "I disagree with what this person says", then it does more or less become a vehicle to punish speech the majority doesn't like.

You honestly don't think people rate my posts down to punish me for posting things they don't like or agree with? It's not like I spam the boards, or cuss excessively, or post random offensive things at people. I engage in conversations, usually in response to subjects other people have chosen. But because I take positions which are not popular, I'm consistently rated down. What is that if not an attempt to squelch unpopular speech? What do you think people are doing when the rate posts?


So, people shouldn't express an opinion on the opinions you express by using a function of the forum because that hurts your freedom of speech...? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 6:25pm by Belkira
#135 Mar 04 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
******
43,866 posts
Even his commentary on ratings is generic and overused.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 Mar 04 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So, people shouldn't express an opinion on the opinions you express by using a function of the forum because that hurts your freedom of speech...? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?


Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?

And btw, I'm not saying that you're not free to do that. Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it. I don't really care. ****. Didn't even notice. But others did (and thought it was funny, so there's that). Ask yourself why that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Mar 04 2014 at 6:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Even his commentary on ratings is generic and overused.


I can't remember the last time you posted anything in response to me that wasn't just a one line troll post, so maybe you should take care of your own kettle? I mean, if we're really supposed to judge posts on their usefulness versus trollish spam that is...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Mar 04 2014 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


Welcome to the club!!! All the cool kids are default by default!

RDD wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


You care waaaay too much. 'Twas years of abortion/religion/sexuality/RDM-melee arguing before I lost my Scholar. If you're going to be fake, might as well not participate. Of course you faked your scholar back the most recent time, but you should try just being yourself.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#139 Mar 04 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion.

No it wouldn't. Book burnings are free speech. Smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is free speech. Pooping on a flag is free speech. Waving photos of dismembered fetuses at passing cars is free speech. Rating down a post is perfectly valid free speech. Whether or not it's fruitful, who knows, but that's not the point here.

You're just being butthurt.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Mar 04 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


You care waaaay too much. 'Twas years of abortion/religion/sexuality/RDM-melee arguing before I lost my Scholar. If you're going to be fake, might as well not participate. Of course you faked your scholar back the most recent time, but you should try just being yourself.


I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.





Edited, Mar 4th 2014 7:46pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#141 Mar 04 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
******
43,866 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it.
And by "honest," you mean that line slightly upthread about doing it to hide the gospel truth that you preach and because they fear you?

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 7:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Mar 04 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care
I'll do my best
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#143 Mar 04 2014 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They could set me to Admin and I wouldn't even complain!


Well, go on...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 04 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
RDD wrote:

I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.


I do recall you making a post about you achieving scholar. In any case, no need to bring up that stuff... I'll save it for another timeSmiley: nod

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 3:24am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#145 Mar 04 2014 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:

I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.


I do recall you making a post about you achieving scholar. In any case, no need to bring up that stuff... I'll save it for another timeSmiley: nod


Must have been since RCD, because RDD had no hope in **** of ever getting scholar. **** at one point it was bouncing between subdefault and default.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#146 Mar 04 2014 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,649 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


If it makes you feel any better, I've rated you up quite a few times before. Smiley: wink

It's kind of like ******* into the wind though. One would think with such a high post count your karma would never really move.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#147 Mar 04 2014 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?

And btw, I'm not saying that you're not free to do that. Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it. I don't really care. ****. Didn't even notice. But others did (and thought it was funny, so there's that). Ask yourself why that is.


That's not how free speech works.

Let this stand for the record: If I ever rate you down, gbaji, it's because I didn't agree with you.

There. Now I can rate down with impunity!
#148 Mar 04 2014 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion.

No it wouldn't. Book burnings are free speech. Smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is free speech. Pooping on a flag is free speech. Waving photos of dismembered fetuses at passing cars is free speech.


Intent matters. If the intent of those things is to express an opinion, then it's free speech. If you burn books in order to make a point, it's free speech. If you burn books because you don't like what they say and you want to destroy them all so no one can read them, it's the opposite of free speech.

Quote:
Rating down a post is perfectly valid free speech.


I disagree. I've never liked (or used) the rating system precisely because IMO it's far more likely to be about popular versus unpopular speech than it is about useful versus non-useful (which is the actual stated purpose). We've all seen cliques form in various forums where those who are liked are rated up, and those who are not are rated down. For gaming forums, it's slightly better than moderated forums because at least then you don't have admins picking sides. But only slightly.

For off topic forums? It's relatively useless *except* as a tool to punish unpopular speech out of some desire to drive it away. True spam posts already get erased, so what's there to rate? I'm reasonably certain that most of those who rate me down repeatedly and consistently do it because they want me and my opinions to disappear from this forum. They don't want to be exposed to what I write, and they don't want others to be exposed either. That's absolutely about a desire to suppress ideas and opinions they don't like.

Quote:
Whether or not it's fruitful, who knows, but that's not the point here.


Sure. But what do you think would be the "fruitful purpose" in the minds of those rating posts down? They want me to stop posting my opinions and post things that they agree with instead, right? That is the sole reason to rate any post. What is that if not an intent to eliminate speech? I agree that it's not fruitful in my case, mainly because I don't care about the ratings. But here's the point. That approach does work on everyone who does care. And I think it's pretty clear that some posters on this forum do actually care about their karma score.

And I know for a fact that there are a number of posters/lurkers on this forum who agree with me, but are literally afraid of posting their opinions because they don't want to suffer the negative backlash that would result.

Quote:
You're just being butthurt.


I didn't even notice, so that's a bit strange to say.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Mar 04 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
So what? The people making minimum wage +$1, and minimum wage +$2, minimum wage +$3, etc are as well. What's the point? You don't honestly think there's some conspiracy out there where millions of employees are paid just a few pennies over minimum wage so that the employer can say "I pay more than minimum wage" do you? Let me link to a personal income wiki. Look at the "income distribution" chart. It divides each line into $2.5k/year blocks. And while the percentage in each block does decrease as the numbers get higher, it's a relatively smooth change over time. It's not like there's this mass of people making just over minimum wage.
The point is that people near minimum wage are affected by minimum wage increases. The closer you are to this, the more you are affected. Your argument was saying that only people making exactly minimum wage are affected, which is ridiculous. Employers aren't paying people slightly over minimum wage to make a statistical point either, they pay slightly over minimum wage to try and keep employees slightly longer at sub standard wages. Amusing straw man though.

Quote:
How do you objectively measure "working as much as they can"? Also, this puts us in the strange position of creating a measurement that increases the number of "people in need" by raising the bar to which we grant the free thing. So if I decide that everyone earning less than $30k/year deserves food stamps, now your measurement says that if an employer isn't paying someone more than $30k/year, they aren't paying them enough.
that's fair, lets say full time then. 40-60 hours a week. The rest of your sentence is correct, except that you're painting the line where someone gets food stamps as arbitrary which it's not.

Quote:
That becomes completely circular. Someone is picking an arbitrary number at which they think is "not enough" for someone to make, setting food stamp conditions to that, and then that is used to "prove" the initial assumption (that it's not enough pay).
It's not circular at all. No one is picking a number for food stamps in order to somehow justify food stamps, that's another straw man. The number is picked using the standard of how much money is needed to support yourself and your dependents with lodging and food. If you come up short, food stamps are there to help compensate. This criteria is also a good point at which to say, if you're working full time, you shouldn't be below this number. There is no circularity at all, you determine a number that people need to live, and move forward to multiple conclusions, one is that people who make less need food stamps. The other is that someone working full time should be over this line.

The rest of your rhetoric is just that. I think a company needs to be responsible to it's employees. Taking advantage of them to squeeze out the maximum profit is unethical. Profit is fine, but there should be a responsibility to ensure that someone who works for you full time, especially for an extended period of time is able to take care of themselves, which is in the lower tier of our economy, often not the case. Your argument has merit, but falls apart when a company has too much power and unbalances the relationship. At such a point, when they can start taking advantage of the employees, there needs to be laws that step in and prevent this from happening. This has been so clearly illustrated over and over again, that the concept that labour laws somehow hurt the workers in the long run is ludicrous.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 8:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#150 Mar 04 2014 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?


That's not how free speech works.


Of course it is. If the community tars and feathers anyone who says that Bach is better than Beethoven, that's going to tend to suppress the speech of anyone who thinks that, isn't it? More to the point, that is precisely why they are doing it. Just saying "well, that's just a consequence of stating your opinion, but you're still free to express it", kinda misses the point. The entire point is to scare away the next person who might dare to say something the group disagrees with.

And that's entirely about suppressing free speech.

If a group of teens made fun of another teen for wearing a pro GLBTA t-shirt, would you just dismiss this as a consequence of the his free speech? Be honest with your answer.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Mar 04 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
If a group of teens made fun of another teen for wearing a pro GLBTA t-shirt, would you just dismiss this as a consequence of the his free speech? Be honest with your answer.



"Made fun of," yes. Beat the **** out of him, no.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 102 All times are in CDT