3 ms·

You're already talking about a much different issue than what you listed. Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemploy

by eglover 12y ago

You're already talking about a much different issue than what you listed. Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority. You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.

couchand 12y ago
Wow, what a strong reaction! I'm not sure what issue you think I've entirely avoided, I think my comment was pretty fair and direct. But let me try to elaborate a bit. I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color. The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that. The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.
- eglover 12y ago
  Starting out with "strong reaction" suggests you're either confused, or want to back off from the reality of your original point by trying to take a middle ground or change your wording. I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing. When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others. Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.
  - couchand 12y ago
    When I say your reaction is strong I'm referring to the use of value-laden extreme language like the phrase "stupid poor minority" (which I'm not sure why you quoted since they were your words) and calling me a Marxist, an apparent attempt to escalate what could be a reasonably calm discussion to a heated argument.
    - eglover 12y ago
      1. Stupid, poor, minority are your words. It's funny how you can use terms with the exact same definition, but get scared when reality strikes. 2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics). 3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.
      - couchand 12y ago
        No, the fact of the matter is that "stupid poor minority" are your words and simply that you continue to try to claim that they're mine shows that you're just trolling here.
        eglover 12y ago
        underinformed/underrepresented/broke = dumb/minority/poor There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.
        couchand 12y ago
        There is, actually, a difference. Notwithstanding the difference in connotation (which is significant, but you seem to be willingly ignoring), there is a pretty important difference in denotation. An underinformed person could get informed, a dumb person maybe not. There are far more underrepresented groups than just minorities, so equating the two is simply ignoring critical facts about the world. And though broke and poor are pretty close to being synonyms, there is still a distinction: broke implies a temporary state. One day you'll learn that the world is more nuanced than your absolutism would have. Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion then. For now I'm done feeding the trolls.

by eglover 12y ago

couchand 12y ago

Wow, what a strong reaction! I'm not sure what issue you think I've entirely avoided, I think my comment was pretty fair and direct. But let me try to elaborate a bit. I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color. The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that. The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.

eglover 12y ago
Starting out with "strong reaction" suggests you're either confused, or want to back off from the reality of your original point by trying to take a middle ground or change your wording. I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing. When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others. Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.
- couchand 12y ago
  When I say your reaction is strong I'm referring to the use of value-laden extreme language like the phrase "stupid poor minority" (which I'm not sure why you quoted since they were your words) and calling me a Marxist, an apparent attempt to escalate what could be a reasonably calm discussion to a heated argument.
  - eglover 12y ago
    1. Stupid, poor, minority are your words. It's funny how you can use terms with the exact same definition, but get scared when reality strikes. 2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics). 3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.
    - couchand 12y ago
      No, the fact of the matter is that "stupid poor minority" are your words and simply that you continue to try to claim that they're mine shows that you're just trolling here.
      - eglover 12y ago
        underinformed/underrepresented/broke = dumb/minority/poor There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.
        couchand 12y ago
        There is, actually, a difference. Notwithstanding the difference in connotation (which is significant, but you seem to be willingly ignoring), there is a pretty important difference in denotation. An underinformed person could get informed, a dumb person maybe not. There are far more underrepresented groups than just minorities, so equating the two is simply ignoring critical facts about the world. And though broke and poor are pretty close to being synonyms, there is still a distinction: broke implies a temporary state. One day you'll learn that the world is more nuanced than your absolutism would have. Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion then. For now I'm done feeding the trolls.