22 ms·

the ease with which you compare the minimum programmer wage of $160 and the general minimum wage of $16 is astounding. (not to mention the ease of waving off em

by bakhy 12y ago

the ease with which you compare the minimum programmer wage of $160 and the general minimum wage of $16 is astounding. (not to mention the ease of waving off empirical data, wow!) these things are not exactly equal, some consideration should be given to differences in these markets if you want to be serious. programmers are not so abundant, and for us the market really works. for a non-educated worker, on the other hand, the market is problematic, with an abundance of workers creating downward pressure on pay that is, de facto, only stopped by social security! freedom is important, but to most people on the lower end of the income graph, just making a living is a more pressing issue. the money must come from somewhere, and it will come from profits, yes. sadly, individual employers have no reason to pay these workers more, on the contrary. so, look at this like a collective bargain, but achieved on a wider level. this brings me to the last, but greatest problem with your post - the ease with which you completely dismiss the democratic will of the people who voted for this policy (though indirectly). they are either in an evil conspiracy, or merely stupid. this is quite an anti-democratic, condescending attitude.

todd8 12y ago
You make a good point. Making a living is a pressing issue, and I feel that we do have a responsibility to aid those that can't take care of themselves. Further, you point out correctly, that I was harsh in my dismissal of those supporting Seattle's policy. Most people that support Seattle's policy probably do it in the belief that it will help the people that need help. Nevertheless, I believe that there are likely to be unanticipated negative consequences and a further eroding of our freedoms. I must disagree with you that simply because the people of Seattle have had a democratic vote for a particular policy that we must respect it and refrain from criticizing it. The majority isn't always right and there is a long tradition in my country (the USA) of speaking out against policies that are either morally wrong (in some way) or wasteful despite the positions taken by majorities. I'm old enough to have demonstrated for civil rights at a time when there were states still refusing civil rights to their racial minority populations. While I was in college, there was a minority in this country demonstrating against a war being waged by conscripts that didn't want to fight. Today, there are states that don't allow gays the rights that the rest of us have. Do you dismiss criticism of these (sometimes majority held) positions as condescending and anti-democratic? Our cherished Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic, protecting us from simple democratic majorities. I'm curious, although not hopeful, about the outcome of Seattle's experiment. I share your wish that it will help (the difference is I believe it won't). You can say to me "I told you so" if it really does help the people of Seattle, that would be a good thing.
- bakhy 12y ago
  > I must disagree with you that simply because the people of Seattle have had a democratic vote for a particular policy that we must respect it and refrain from criticizing it. Now, if only I had ever said that... I did not call your attitude undemocratic simply because you disagree. I called it undemocratic, because you declared everyone who disagrees with you to be either retards or morally bankrupt. All this condescending preaching was not really necessary.

by bakhy 12y ago

todd8 12y ago

You make a good point. Making a living is a pressing issue, and I feel that we do have a responsibility to aid those that can't take care of themselves. Further, you point out correctly, that I was harsh in my dismissal of those supporting Seattle's policy. Most people that support Seattle's policy probably do it in the belief that it will help the people that need help. Nevertheless, I believe that there are likely to be unanticipated negative consequences and a further eroding of our freedoms. I must disagree with you that simply because the people of Seattle have had a democratic vote for a particular policy that we must respect it and refrain from criticizing it. The majority isn't always right and there is a long tradition in my country (the USA) of speaking out against policies that are either morally wrong (in some way) or wasteful despite the positions taken by majorities. I'm old enough to have demonstrated for civil rights at a time when there were states still refusing civil rights to their racial minority populations. While I was in college, there was a minority in this country demonstrating against a war being waged by conscripts that didn't want to fight. Today, there are states that don't allow gays the rights that the rest of us have. Do you dismiss criticism of these (sometimes majority held) positions as condescending and anti-democratic? Our cherished Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic, protecting us from simple democratic majorities. I'm curious, although not hopeful, about the outcome of Seattle's experiment. I share your wish that it will help (the difference is I believe it won't). You can say to me "I told you so" if it really does help the people of Seattle, that would be a good thing.

bakhy 12y ago
> I must disagree with you that simply because the people of Seattle have had a democratic vote for a particular policy that we must respect it and refrain from criticizing it. Now, if only I had ever said that... I did not call your attitude undemocratic simply because you disagree. I called it undemocratic, because you declared everyone who disagrees with you to be either retards or morally bankrupt. All this condescending preaching was not really necessary.