• Shawn
    12.6k
    After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life.

    Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.

    Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.

    So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

    A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.

    So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life.

    Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.

    Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.

    So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

    A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.

    So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response.
    Question




    1.) High wages for their labor are not the only thing that the "poor" people you refer to are not getting. They are not getting safe work environments. They are not getting humane working conditions such as regular bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, etc. They do not have the legal right to unionize and collectively bargain. They, it is my understanding, are being treated with absolutely no dignity--they, as I understand it, are treated like horses and other non-human animals that do work.

    2.) When you buy "goods produced in China or India" and similar places the price does not include externalities such as people being dispossessed and seeing their indigenous culture destroyed; families being broken up as people who have been dispossessed and had their culture destroyed in rural areas migrate to urban areas to find work; pollution and other environmental destruction that is caused; etc.

    3.) Most importantly, being altruistic means acting out of concern for the welfare of others and in the interest of others. If "buying goods produced in China or India" is thought to be in the best interest of others and done out of concern for the welfare of others then it is altruistic.
  • Galuchat
    808
    After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life. — Question

    So psychopaths control the markets; tell me something I don't know. Is your friend Gordon Gekko?
    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012282/quotes

    This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. — Question

    Why waste time educating leaders? Just bribe, blackmail, or threaten them. There's plenty of money available for those kind of things, because it's not wasted on labour costs.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Is your friend Gordon Gekko?Galuchat
    Yeah, he's my pal, I have a chat with him every night 8-)
  • Shawn
    12.6k

    It can always be argued comparatively that the poor just have it worse off. That's not the topic though. But, if you insist, I would like to point out that every nation with a demographic of 'poor' individuals is/are always worse off than those who are relatively better or well off instead. I have nothing aginst some socialism for the poor, and I suspect any politician that runs for office in a noncorrupt nation will be answerable to the poor also. So, in the end, the poor eventually get what they need through work and voting. Which, brings to fray the need for strong and stable governments that encourage open markets and intellectual freedom.

    In regards to your second point... I would argue that eventually, all externalities have to be accounted for in the end. Typically prices reflect the typical externalities accounted for. Sadly all externalities cannot be accounted for and if some are omitted, then the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    So psychopaths control the markets; tell me something I don't know. Is your friend Gordon Gekko?
    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012282/quotes
    Galuchat

    Straw man!

    Why waste time educating leaders? Just bribe, blackmail, or threaten them. There's plenty of money available for those kind of things, because it's not wasted on labour costs.Galuchat

    What kind of argument is that? Of course, it would be better to educate them and value the opportunity of free markets. The only reason why poor countries remain poor is due to poor leadership and corruption.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    The only reason why poor countries remain poor is due to poor leadership and corruption.Question
    That's not true. They remain poor because the rich use their money to divide them and buy their leaders. They also remain poor because of lack of patience, not waiting for the right opportunity to pounce. Not having killer instinct. The combination of those two reasons are the causes of poverty, + lack of resources in some cases.

    friend who is an economistQuestion
    Ahh, that species of men who think they know the rules of money but actually don't. An economist is to an entrepreneur like a boxing historian is to Muhammad Ali ;)
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    'The market' conjures an image of some version of the miner selling ore to the blacksmith, who sells tools to the farmer, who sells food them both, and money or barter regulates supply and demand such that everyone provides value to others and receives equivalent value from others.

    But obviously it is nothing at all like that. The miner, the farmer, the blacksmith does not get the value of his labour because things are not arranged as a market of that sort at all. Rather, the mine owner, the landowner, the 'entrepreneurs' literally take a cut between every exchange between others, impoverishing them all. The 'market' is institutionalised robbery.

    An economist is to an entrepreneur like a boxing historian is to Muhammad Ali ;)Agustino

    Or a biologist to a tapeworm. Again, the image one is supposed to have of the entrepreneur is of the shopkeeper, or travelling trader, facilitating the exchange between others and taking in exchange the means of their own livelihood. But in fact, the market makers are market fixers.

    Not having killer instinct.Agustino

    Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    'The market' conjures an image of some version of the miner selling ore to the blacksmith, who sells tools to the farmer, who sells food them both, and money or barter regulates supply and demand such that everyone provides value to others and receives equivalent value from others.unenlightened
    Yes agreed.

    Rather, the mine owner, the landowner, the 'entrepreneurs' literally take a cut between every exchange between others, impoverishing them all.unenlightened
    Which is fair game unenlightened. The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine (or rights to exploit its resources), hired the miners (who have a guaranteed pay at the end of the day), negotiated the deals, established a distribution network for the products, hoped the products would sell in sufficient volume, etc.

    Who else should take the biggest cut? The miner? The miner had it easy. All he had to do was take the gold out. His pay was fixed. Whether he did an average job or a fantastic job - he still got paid. The entrepreneur didn't. He absolutely had to make it work.

    Again, the image one is supposed to have of the entrepreneur is of the shopkeeper, or travelling trader, facilitating the exchange between others and taking in exchange the means of their own livelihood. But in fact, the market makers are market fixers.unenlightened
    I don't follow.

    Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others.unenlightened
    I was talking about why countries are poor. Leaders absolutely must have killer instinct, otherwise they cannot capitalise on opportunities and make their countries strong and powerful. Even Ghandi had a very developed killer instinct, otherwise he would have failed to bring down the British Empire. And if they don't, then their countries will be ruled by other countries and subjugated. That's just how the world is. You're either a powerful country, and then you rule over other countries and set the terms - or you're a small country and forced to accept whatever others force you to do in order to be permitted to survive.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market.Question

    I don't know about that. We have a bunch of homeless people--a bunch of people who have no regular shelter and who have trouble acquiring food, we have a bunch of people who are unemployed or who can't find a decent job that pays well, we have a bunch of people with either no healthcare or who have to worry about whether they'll not go bankrupt should something happen to them that requires any sort of hospital stay, we have a bunch of people who can't afford a home, etc. If that's a good organization of labor and resources, maybe we should try a "bad" organization of labor and resources for a bit.
  • Galuchat
    808
    Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis. — unenlightened

    Exactly. And that would be Fascism.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Which is fair game unenlightened. The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine (or rights to exploit its resources), hired the miners (who have a guaranteed pay at the end of the day), negotiated the deals, established a distribution network for the products, hoped the products would sell in sufficient volume, etc.Agustino

    Again, this is the image that is projected. But starving entrepreneurs who have lost everything,throwing themselves out of their high rise offices, are rather exceptional, whereas starving miners, dead miners underground, miners dying of respiratory disease in poverty, are commonplace; these are the people taking the real risks. Even farmers take far more risk than entrepreneurs.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    whereas starving miners, dead miners underground, miners dying of respiratory disease in poverty, are commonplace; these are the people taking the real risks.unenlightened
    They don't take them as risks. For them it's more risky to spend their time trying to start a business selling chickens from one city to another while having their family starve than to go down the mine and have a fixed pay at the end of the month. I've worked with construction workers in the past, and many people who work such jobs think in these terms. Many would not actually want to go through the fuss of starting and owning a business or doing something else more complicated.

    But starving entrepreneurs who have lost everything,throwing themselves out of their high rise officesunenlightened
    Are you kidding me? Most entrepreneurs out there fail. Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful. The personality that is required to be a successful entrepreneur is very very different than the common personalities generally found around the world.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    And that would be Fascism.Galuchat

    That is Fascism, I think you would have to say; I'm not talking about something that could possibly happen somewhere, but what is happening all the time and everywhere. But I have no interest in arguing about the labels you think we should apply.

    Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful.Agustino

    You confirm my point. If you can fail, and fail and fail and then succeed, then failure is not a serious risk. Clearly the penalty for failure is carried by others, who lose their livelihood, their health their pensions, their lives.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    You confirm my point. If you can fail, and fail and fail and then succeed, then failure is not a serious risk. Clearly the penalty for failure is carried by others, who lose their livelihood, their health their pensions, their lives.unenlightened
    I disagree. Failure is a serious risk, and sets an entrepreneur back for a long time. Most entrepreneurs would quit anyway, and go back to being miners. Those who stick with it, stick because of a certain personality - despite the risks, and the sacrifices that they have to make.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    And by the way, you're not addressing the fact that most miners would not even WANT to be entrepreneurs, much less succeed as ones. They'd like to work in an office probably, do less hard work, but they'd still want to make certain bank at the end of the month. So who is at fault that they don't want to do what it takes? It's their choices, and they're paying for them, just like all of us are paying for our choices. They want to - for example - be able to afford having a family, while the entrepreneur has no family and tugs away at it for many many years, only after years of hard toil to be rewarded with riches, that other snitches try to take away from him afterwards. If anyone doesn't have it fair, then it's certainly the entrepreneur.
  • Galuchat
    808
    That is Fascism, I think you would have to say; I'm not talking about something that could possibly happen somewhere, but what is happening all the time and everywhere. — unenlightened

    I agree. Also, greed is good, but globalism is great.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

    Adam Smith's invisible hand.

    by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    And by the way, you're not addressing the fact that most miners would not even WANT to be entrepreneurs, much less succeed as ones.Agustino

    I'm all for market forces to operate here. If there is a terrible shortage of willing business people, then their value is increased. But there is a glut, and their value does not decline because they rig the market.

    ...the entrepreneur has no family and tugs away at it for many many years, only after years of hard toil to be rewarded with riches, that other snitches try to take away from him afterwards. If anyone doesn't have it fair, then it's certainly the entrepreneur.Agustino

    What fairytale is this plagiarised from?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    But there is a glut, and their value does not decline because they rig the market.unenlightened
    Yes, there is a glut who barely make a living out of it while working 10x harder than your average employee. I posted this in the Shoutbox thread, but basically like this woman here:
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Yes, there is a glut who barely make a living out of it while working 10x harder than your average employee.Agustino

    Well if she works ten times as hard as the average employee, she deserves ten times the reward, minus whatever percentage we need to take off to cover all the stuff we want done that doesn't make money directly, like mending the road, defence, justice, child protection, etc. In a better run economy, such arbitrary cut offs are avoided, also healthcare is one of those things taken out of taxation. But the clever business person get's around these things by setting up another, 'arms length' company to employ another 49 people with no health insurance, and another, and another...

    And then they earn, not a bare living, not an average wage, not 10 times the average wage, not 100 times the average wage, but an obscene and unjustifiable amount. I'm all for rewarding businesses that grow by providing a service and contributing to the economy in a legal and ethical way, but Bernie is right to suggest that healthcare is one of the costs of labour, just as paying them enough to feed and shelter themselves is. And if you can't afford that, you can't afford to employ people.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    But the clever business person get's around these things by setting up another, 'arms length' company to employ another 49 people with no health insurance, and another, and another...unenlightened
    Okay but that means additional manpower in terms of accounting and legal issues. So on top of the stress of starting and investing a large amount of money in opening new places employing 49 people, you also have to do it under different companies. A different company starts at 0 revenue. How easy will it be to get a loan on that company, especially if it's a limited liability one? Extremely difficult. If you get a loan on your parent company, then how do you transfer it to the sibling company? Does the sibling company get a 0% interest loan from the parent for that money? See, all this financial juggling isn't easy to do or set up. I have a few crazy ideas for loopholes too, it's not that easy to execute them.

    And then they earn, not a bare living, not an average wage, not 10 times the average wage, not 100 times the average wage, but an obscene and unjustifiable amount.unenlightened
    Yeah, provided they can execute some very crazy and risky strategies, sure. But that's normal.

    Bernie is right to suggest that healthcare is one of the costs of labour, just as paying them enough to feed and shelter themselves is. And if you can't afford that, you can't afford to employ people.unenlightened
    I don't think so. An employer should pay what the employee is willing to work for. Why should it be otherwise? I think even minimum wage levels are a problem. It makes starting a business more difficult. I might be willing to hire completely inexperienced people and give them large responsibilities, but obviously I would want to control the payment. We should be making it easy for entrepreneurs, the whole economy should be based around small independent producers. Right now, we're doing everything in our power to make life a hell for the entrepreneur.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    Don't most (not all) companies sponsor insurance plans, with perhaps some contributions to the plan but typically very little contribution at the level being discussed here. The employee gets benefit of a group rate, which is significantly less than if they were to try to purchase it individually. That lady was full of crap, as was the idiot making the comments
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    That lady was full of crap, as was the idiot making the commentsCavacava


    Don't most (not all) companies sponsor insurance plans, with perhaps some contributions to the plan but typically very little contribution at the level being discussed here.Cavacava
    Depends on the country, that's another unfortunate thing that companies are FORCED to make such contributions. It drives costs with salaries to 30-60% higher in many countries with all the additional taxes needed to be paid.

    I who work as an entrepreneur (well self-employed really) get 0 benefits atm. Tough life being an entrepreneur eh? But I'm not complaining, unlike some people.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Also, there's this totally idiotic notion around that the job of the entrepreneur is to create jobs. NOPE! Entrepreneurs aren't here to create jobs, they're here to make money by fulfilling needs that society has. Notice how that has nothing to do with creating jobs. It's consumers who are actually creating the jobs by giving their money over to entrepreneurs, who can then pass it on to other people and set the entire mechanism up. But yet, our whole media is speaking of entrepreneurs as "job creators" - that's a load of bullshit.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    An employer should pay what the employee is willing to work for. Why should it be otherwise? I think even minimum wage levels are a problem. It makes starting a business more difficult.Agustino

    It should be otherwise because it is unfair. It encourages an economy of desperation. As long as there are desperate people, starvation wages will be the norm. And of course low wages lead to low consumption which is bad for business. What the entrepreneur wants of course is to pay his own staff a pittance and for everyone else to pay well, so that there will be consumers for his product.

    there's this totally idiotic notion around that the job of the entrepreneur is to create jobs.Agustino
    I don't think I have forwarded that notion; it is generally something that employers use to trumpet their social value, like they're doing their workforce a favour.

    I who work as an entrepreneur (well self-employed really) get 0 benefits atm. Tough life being an entrepreneur eh? But I'm not complaining, unlike some people.Agustino

    Yes you are complaining; your whole response to me is about how hard done by you and your fellow heroic business folk are. As a former business person myself, my heart bleeds, of course.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    It encourages an economy of desperation.unenlightened
    Okay, so let us think, where does desperation come from? Is it a material thing? I don't think so. It's more of a spiritual thing. One can be content with the idea of starving, then one will not despair when faced with the possibility, but rather sit Stoic-like and do something about it - if anything at all can be done.

    And of course low wages lead to low consumption which is bad for business.unenlightened
    Yes, I didn't claim otherwise. You should pay high wages IF YOU CAN. But many entrepreneurs, especially small entrepreneurs, can't.

    It should be otherwise because it is unfairunenlightened
    Can you explain why you consider it unfair? Granted that desperation is primarily something spiritual, and not material, why is it the entrepreneur's fault someone agrees to work under certain terms?

    After all, one of the essential steps to being successful as an entrepreneur is mastery over the carrot and whip mentality. You cannot despair except if you hold to the carrot and whip mentality. Then hope and fear rule your life and determine you to take (bad) decisions.

    I don't think I have forwarded that notion;unenlightened
    I didn't address that comment to you in particular.

    it is generally something that employers use to trumpet their social value, like they're doing their workforce a favour.unenlightened
    Yes wrongly - and because people are stupid. Hence why I made my post to correct that misunderstanding.

    Yes you are complaining; your whole response to me is about how hard done by you and your fellow heroic business folk are. As a former business person myself, my heart bleeds, of course.unenlightened
    Well I don't know what kind of a business you used to run, or why you don't think it was hard (or at least harder than being an employee).
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Can you explain why you consider it unfair? Granted that desperation is primarily something spiritual, and not materialAgustino

    I don't grant it at all. If you happen to be a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany, or some other flavour of refugee, you are physically desperate and helpless and depend on the kindness of strangers in a strange land. This is the extreme, there are degrees of helplessness and desperation, but if you are a liberated slave in Southern USA, you become an entrepreneur as a self-employed share cropper - and are exploited . The conditions that allow and encourage exploitation and unfair dealing are many and varied; it is not the case that there is some economic system that is immune or that there is some market place that is inherently fair. Justice is something we can impose on the world to the extent that we value it, not something natural.

    Well I don't know what kind of a business you used to run, or why you don't think it was hard (or at least harder than being an employee).Agustino

    I do think it is harder in the general circumstances in which I find myself. And I have no objection to it being remunerated accordingly. However, whenever someone makes a business, they need to conform the business to rules of health and safety, insurance, tax, employment regulation and so on, and these need to be there and enforced to prevent the unscrupulous from obtaining an advantage from their lack of scruples.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    If you happen to be a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany, or some other flavour of refugee, you are physically desperate and helpless and depend on the kindness of strangers in a strange land.unenlightened
    Sure, but in that extreme case, the law is not going to help you. It's people's kindness, as you say.

    The conditions that allow and encourage exploitation and unfair dealing are many and varied; it is not the case that there is some economic system that is immune or that there is some market place that is inherently fair. Justice is something we can impose on the world to the extent that we value it, not something natural.unenlightened
    You may be right, but it's also possible that some people need to be exploited to realise what kind of work is worth doing and what kind of work isn't worth doing. Someone may work for 50 cents an hour, but soon they'll be sick of that work, and learn not to get themselves in such situations again. Or they may gain valuable experience at that 50 cents an hour job, allowing them to move to something much better. Who knows - a lot of it depends on the person, how ambitious they are, etc.

    I don't know man, I'm paying that at the moment, but I'm just thinking it would be so fun not to pay it :P Why should the government decide what to do with my money? They'll likely put it in their own pockets. I'm better off donating it, 10% to the Church, 10% to charity. Why pay the fucking government instead? Is that really more moral?
  • Thinker
    200
    What we need in society is to stop trying to make computer scientists out of miners. When someone – anywhere – is displaced in their job – sit down and talk to them and ask – what do you like to do? For miners or autoworkers it probably involves working with their hands. How about teaching a man or women to make furniture with hand tools? No big investment (less than $500 in tools), no long training- if at all, no commute to work (you can do it on your kitchen table) and best of all – no boss.

    If you see a man or women outside of the supermarket begging – with a sign “homeless & hungry” - what do you think? Do you say to yourself – what a smelly, dirty bum? How about if you see a person with a sign that says – “I lost my job at the mine, but now I make birdhouses for sale”. Would you talk to them? Ask some questions? Let’s ask some theoretical questions:

    How did you get started making birdhouses?
    A friend showed me how to do it.
    Where do you get the wood?
    I get stickers for free at lumber yards and old pallets companies don’t want.
    Cool, how about the paint?
    I go to garage sales and recycling centers and get the paint for very little cost. I also ask my customers if they have any materials they think I could use.
    Hey, I got some stuff – can I bring it to you?
    Sure – I live in town.
    How much for this birdhouse?
    I don’t put a price on anything – I ask for an exchange that makes us both happy.
    I give you $50 and a promise of more material – what is your cell phone number?
    Deal!


    You can sell birdhouses, flowers in a planter, art on cardboard, Calligraphic poetry on repurposed frames from the thrift store. The ideas are limitless and cheap to produce. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day – teach a man to fish and…………..

    Show people how to be self-reliant and maintain self-respect.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.