Blog attacks VP assoiation with Ayn Rand

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Blog attacks VP assoiation with Ayn Rand

http://www.americablog.com/2012/08/who-is-paul-ryan-romneys-expected-vp.html

While it has been pointed out before, now that Romney has chosen Paul Ryan, what makes him evil isn't his eccomic policies, what makes him evil, is the same thing the right accuses Obama of, just look at my godless commie sig below.

This blog is calling Ryan evil because of his influence of Ayan Rand's "militancy".

This pisses me off because this is clearly a left blog rightfully attacking a bat shit insane economic policy, but instead of attacking Ryan on that, it takes a cheap shot at atheists, because we are scapegoats both sides have used.

Let me make this clear, both to the right wing nuts, and to our liberal believing friends. Atheism has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an individuals economic views. If both the right wing and left who may read this, would spend time here they would know that atheists DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

Beyond Saving I suspect is going to vote for Romney and Ryan(moreso to vote against Obama), and I am voting for Obama, and both of us are atheists.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, and so am I, but while I would have agreed with her rejection of a god, the only thing "militant" about her would be her economic policies. Katherine Hepburn on the other hand, was viewed widely throughout her career as a social liberal, most not knowing that she did not believe in a god.

"Militant" has become a slur both right wing and liberals have aimed at atheists and it is a bullshit tactic. We are part of society, and we are just as unique and individual in the scope of our lives when it comes to our class status, our politics and our likes and dislikes.

Ayn Rand had more in common to me, with the likes of Ann Coulter, than me. The fact that Ayn and I are atheists does not mean we have some stupid loyalty oath to each other, any more than a liberal Baptist has anything in common with a conservative Baptist.

To all reading this, there was a real and specific reason the founders put "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" into the oath of office. If Romney and Ryan came out tomorrow and said "We don't believe in a god", that would not make me vote for them, I would still vote for Obama.

Attacking Ryan and using atheists as a slur and scapegoat is a cheap shot, even when liberals do it. To my liberal friends who believe, please, you do yourselves a disservice to the concept of protecting diversity by using the same fear mongering the right uses, and insult atheists who do support your progressive policies.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving I suspect is going to vote for Romney and Ryan(moreso to vote against Obama), and I am voting for Obama, and both of us are atheists.

Um, I have told you a thousand times I am libertarian. I will be voting for Gary Johnson and picking Paul Ryan as VP does nothing to change my mind.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving I suspect is going to vote for Romney and Ryan(moreso to vote against Obama), and I am voting for Obama, and both of us are atheists.

Um, I have told you a thousand times I am libertarian. I will be voting for Gary Johnson and picking Paul Ryan as VP does nothing to change my mind.

That makes us even, because I keep telling you I don't hate your wealth nor do I want to rob you.

I know you are a libertarian. But you have upon a couple of occasions defended Romney vs Obama on certain issues. But thanks for voting third party, it will be a vote for Obama.

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on steroids. I am soo looking forward to becoming Somalia so you can keep your cheap labor.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Just wondering

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was an atheist, and so am I, but while I would have agreed with her rejection of a god, the only thing "militant" about her would be her economic policies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RIP^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ayn Rand had more in common to me, with the likes of Ann Coulter, than me.

Have you ever read any of her books? Either fiction or non-fiction.

In the 1970s I read everything she had written. I was somewhat a follower then.

Just like I have read many Bible translations many times when I was a believer and more actually after I become an atheist.

As with understanding the Bible, understanding or reading her views gives you basis.

Now of course I'd be a heretic to Objectivism just like I am a godless heathen heretic.

You?

Brian37 wrote:

Attacking Ryan and using atheists as a slur and scapegoat is a cheap shot, even when liberals do it. To my liberal friends who believe, please, you do yourselves a disservice to the concept of protecting diversity by using the same fear mongering the right uses, and insult atheists who do support your progressive policies.

 

You know how it is, we are the closest thing to witches they can attack. Few will defend us. We are likened to those who may not be loyal, as obviously we must be insane or have some sort of devious plan to force them to barbeque kittens since we do not  know their god.

It is funny though how many of the far right advocate her ideas but ignore the part where she was a non-believer.

But, they have the ability to be schizophrenic when it comes to government involvement. They want small government and want it out of their lives with regard to money but morals, individual rights, and personal freedoms they want large government to enforce their morals and views. No government interference for money but major government control over morals.

Why do their heads not explode from these contradictory positions?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Libertarians

Brian37 wrote:

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on steroids. I am soo looking forward to becoming Somalia so you can keep your cheap labor.

Way to paint with a broad brush in a thread where you started by criticizing someone else for painting with a broad brush. I do think that Romney winning would be preferable to Obama winning but that is sort of like saying I would rather be shot in the head than drawn and quartered. Sad that people like you become so blindly loyal to labels that you ignore what politicians are doing. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was an atheist, and so am I, but while I would have agreed with her rejection of a god, the only thing "militant" about her would be her economic policies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RIP^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ayn Rand had more in common to me, with the likes of Ann Coulter, than me.

Have you ever read any of her books? Either fiction or non-fiction.

In the 1970s I read everything she had written. I was somewhat a follower then.

Just like I have read many Bible translations many times when I was a believer and more actually after I become an atheist.

As with understanding the Bible, understanding or reading her views gives you basis.

Now of course I'd be a heretic to Objectivism just like I am a godless heathen heretic.

You?

Brian37 wrote:

Attacking Ryan and using atheists as a slur and scapegoat is a cheap shot, even when liberals do it. To my liberal friends who believe, please, you do yourselves a disservice to the concept of protecting diversity by using the same fear mongering the right uses, and insult atheists who do support your progressive policies.

 

You know how it is, we are the closest thing to witches they can attack. Few will defend us. We are likened to those who may not be loyal, as obviously we must be insane or have some sort of devious plan to force them to barbeque kittens since we do not  know their god.

It is funny though how many of the far right advocate her ideas but ignore the part where she was a non-believer.

But, they have the ability to be schizophrenic when it comes to government involvement. They want small government and want it out of their lives with regard to money but morals, individual rights, and personal freedoms they want large government to enforce their morals and views. No government interference for money but major government control over morals.

Why do their heads not explode from these contradictory positions?

I agree.

But I am pissed that the left pulled this McCarthy tactic, it is something reserved for the right wing.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on steroids. I am soo looking forward to becoming Somalia so you can keep your cheap labor.

Way to paint with a broad brush in a thread where you started by criticizing someone else for painting with a broad brush. I do think that Romney winning would be preferable to Obama winning but that is sort of like saying I would rather be shot in the head than drawn and quartered. Sad that people like you become so blindly loyal to labels that you ignore what politicians are doing. 

You are right, I should not paint you with a broad brush. I hope more people vote third party like you, it will put Obama back in office. Thanks for the help.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3470
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sad that

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sad that people like you become so blindly loyal to labels that you ignore what politicians are doing. 

i agree with the spirit of this statement.  i know exactly what politicians are doing.  i also know where 99% of them should end up.

in any revolution i would ever get behind, obama wouldn't be in any less danger of standing before a tribunal than many of his peers in both parties.  the best he would be able to hope for is a quiet, austere retirement.  at least he'd be able to smoke all he wanted again.

as for bush, cheney, and ms. condoleezza rice, i would vigorously apply to carry out their sentences personally, while singing woody guthrie's "miss pavlichenko" at the top of my lungs.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i agree with

iwbiek wrote:

i agree with the spirit of this statement.  i know exactly what politicians are doing.  i also know where 99% of them should end up.

in any revolution i would ever get behind, obama wouldn't be in any less danger of standing before a tribunal than many of his peers in both parties.  the best he would be able to hope for is a quiet, austere retirement.  at least he'd be able to smoke all he wanted again.

as for bush, cheney, and ms. condoleezza rice, i would vigorously apply to carry out their sentences personally, while singing woody guthrie's "miss pavlichenko" at the top of my lungs.

I gotta go with iwbiek on that one.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I as well.

I as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This blog is

Brian37 wrote:

This blog is calling Ryan evil because of his influence of Ayan Rand's "militancy".

Ayn Rand wrote:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.

She hardly sounds like a militant to me. She is advocating for the use of force in only the narrowest of circumstances. Whereas your philosophy is calls for massive use of force in every circumstance.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on steroids. I am soo looking forward to becoming Somalia so you can keep your cheap labor.

 

So if someone sets up shop in Somalia, aren't warlords going to demand 'protection money' in order to operate in their territory? And then the warlord gives the money to his supporters for not much for the businessman in return.

Same as Obama and libs do here, right?

The only difference is in Somolia they wear khakis instead of suits. They carry and AK our IRS agents carry a cell phone to call the police. WFT is the real difference? Business and jobs leave Somolia for this reason, business and jobs leave USA for this reason. Neither sound very libertarian to me.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:This

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This blog is calling Ryan evil because of his influence of Ayan Rand's "militancy".

Ayn Rand wrote:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.

She hardly sounds like a militant to me. She is advocating for the use of force in only the narrowest of circumstances. Whereas your philosophy is calls for massive use of force in every circumstance.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on steroids. I am soo looking forward to becoming Somalia so you can keep your cheap labor.

 

So if someone sets up shop in Somalia, aren't warlords going to demand 'protection money' in order to operate in their territory? And then the warlord gives the money to his supporters for not much for the businessman in return.

Same as Obama and libs do here, right?

The only difference is in Somolia they wear khakis instead of suits. They carry and AK our IRS agents carry a cell phone to call the police. WFT is the real difference? Business and jobs leave Somolia for this reason, business and jobs leave USA for this reason. Neither sound very libertarian to me.

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist. So are you. Now that the Libertarian/Republican party has been called on it, you attempt to paint progressives with the same image.

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

FYI all taxes are "protection" money. Now unless you want to hand your social security check to me, fucking knock it off. It is OUR government, not yours, not mine, OURS.

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

CUT THE FUCKING CRAP! The problem isn't less government vs more government. The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that. Wanting to keep abuse in check is what we want. Maintaining the status quo to fuel the tax breaks for the uber rich on the backs of the middle class and working poor is what you advocate. Libertarians are nothing but republicans on meth.

When the economy is based on slash and burn and fueled by the uber rich whose only objective is to maximize profits, and dump their losses on the rest of us, you will not get one fucking lick of sympathy from me. If the top had cared in the first place we would not be in this mess. The blame is rightfully on them. They are the bullies, they are the ones with the money to bully the rest of us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Ayn Rand was a

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist.

No she wasn't. Objectivism is completely at odds with social darwinism, in fact an objectivist would argue that social darwinism is impossible. Social darwinism relies on the belief that in order for one person to succeed another must fail. Objectivists reject that belief and believe that productivity comes from each individuals mind so another person's success or failure is irrelevant to your success or failure. IOW where the social darwinist argues that the best will succeed and the others will die, the objectivist argues that all people can be successful and all become wealthy simultaneously. The whole fundamental argument of Atlas Shrugged was that the leaders of industry made everyone in the country wealthier and when they left, the entire country became impoverished, an idea directly at odds with social darwinist beliefs. 

Also, take a look at how Galt's Valley is described, her idea of utopia. No one in the valley was poor, despite aggressive economic competition. Your conception of the economy is much closer to the social darwinists, although you obviously come to a different conclusion. You seem to believe that when one person becomes wealthy they do so at the expense of someone else. The social darwinists were wrong, and you are too. The beautiful thing about a free capitalistic trade is that it can make all parties participating in the transaction better off. Purchasing an item from a store is an act of cooperation, not competition, although there are certainly competitive aspects.

Consider a football game where both teams put on a great game, a classic that will be replayed for years. Obviously, they are competing and one team will lose. Yet both teams gain. The NFL brings in more money, the players on both teams become more well known (leading to more endorsements and opportunities) and while it is certainly better to be on the winning side, the losing team is still much better off than if the game was never played at all.

Our economic pie is not fixed. The top 1% having $X does not prevent you from producing and making money. The biggest thing that stops you is your own mind. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

What are you supporting if it isn't taking from one person in order to give to another?

 

Brian37 wrote:

FYI all taxes are "protection" money. Now unless you want to hand your social security check to me, fucking knock it off. It is OUR government, not yours, not mine, OURS.

I expect that most likely my social security check will go to you. It is virtually certain that by the time I am old enough social security will be gone because people like you will have taken far more out of it than you ever put in. The babyboomers are the most selfish generation our country has ever seen and have robbed their children and grandchildren blind. The most disgusting thing is they bitch about it not being enough. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

Where did she ever say that? Where did I ever say that? And EXC doesn't support any rights for anyone, so I am pretty sure he has never said that. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

CUT THE FUCKING CRAP! The problem isn't less government vs more government. The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that.

There is only one true monopoly, government. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Wanting to keep abuse in check is what we want.

Who is abusing you? How?

 

Brian37 wrote:

When the economy is based on slash and burn and fueled by the uber rich whose only objective is to maximize profits, and dump their losses on the rest of us, you will not get one fucking lick of sympathy from me.

Which President bailed out the auto industry and has now suggested he wants to do the same for every industry? Who is it who has the attitude that failing businesses should sink? An attitude you routinely criticize me for. Look at which idiots support bailing out failing companies and vote against them if paying off corporate losses upsets you so much. Instead, you are going to vote for a list of people who support the bailouts and promise more while blaming people who didn't support the bailouts?!?  

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

If the top had cared in the first place we would not be in this mess. The blame is rightfully on them. They are the bullies, they are the ones with the money to bully the rest of us.

Ah yes, it must be somebody else's fault. None of the blame or responsibility is yours of course. Poor, poor pitiful you. You wouldn't know real poverty if it slapped you upside the head. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ayn Rand was a

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist.

So are you. You see the poor and those with no jobs skills as being highly morally superior to the rich and professionals. You want to advance their cause. You want to support them as they breed as much as they please.

Welfare incentivizes the poor to have more babies. How is that not social Darwinism for your morally superior class?

Brian37 wrote:

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was that the only role of government was to protect private property rights. It is not to step aside entirely. Somalia is Somalia because the warlords do not respect any private property rights and there is no military or police to oppose them. They either extort money from business people (Socialism) or they expropriate business entirely(Communism).

Brian37 wrote:

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

When you look at when the use of force is used in your philosopy vs. Ayn's, it's easy to see who is the militant bully.

Brian37 wrote:

The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that.

Yes. The welfare/entitlement class. They are the majority now. The Dems have got a majority of Americans dependant on government and paying no income tax. So they now will have a monopoly of power until Atlas Shrugs and then the massive debt bankrupts all government.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:Ayn

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist.

So are you. You see the poor and those with no jobs skills as being highly morally superior to the rich and professionals. You want to advance their cause. You want to support them as they breed as much as they please.

Welfare incentivizes the poor to have more babies. How is that not social Darwinism for your morally superior class?

Brian37 wrote:

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was that the only role of government was to protect private property rights. It is not to step aside entirely. Somalia is Somalia because the warlords do not respect any private property rights and there is no military or police to oppose them. They either extort money from business people (Socialism) or they expropriate business entirely(Communism).

Brian37 wrote:

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

When you look at when the use of force is used in your philosopy vs. Ayn's, it's easy to see who is the militant bully.

Brian37 wrote:

The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that.

Yes. The welfare/entitlement class. They are the majority now. The Dems have got a majority of Americans dependant on government and paying no income tax. So they now will have a monopoly of power until Atlas Shrugs and then the massive debt bankrupts all government.

You are so fucking full of shit. So who bailed out the cars and banks? ME and the rest of the 99%, so don't fucking give me a lecture on welfare. You have assholes like Papa John bitching about 14cents when their employees cant afford health care and you want me to have sympathy for billionaires? Must be some good fucking crack you are smoking.

NOW that "welfare" bullshit was pulled after WW2 when we had national projects bringing highways and electricity and phones to the mass public. We had higher tax rates and cheap higher education. If idiots with your mindset had had their way back then none of that would have happened.

Warren Buffet, Nick Hanour and Suzie Orman would all say you are full of shit.

What is bankrupting our government are people like you and the corporate handouts on the backs of the rest of us.

The pricks who put us in this economic mess were NOT the middle class and working poor. The pricks who did this were the people on Wall Street who made bets on both sides win or lose where they won, even when they lost.

Again, this is OUR government, not yours, not mine, OURS. This government is not "of the money, for the money, and fuck everyone else". And since I have the right to vote, you can go fuck yourself if you think the rest of us are losers. Societies that have a tendency to look down on others long term usually have their asses handed to them.

You are out of your mind if you think the middle class and working poor should trust the people who caused this with "no rules", which would be worse than what we have now which is "we write the rules because we have money". Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on meth.

And your "welfare" argument was used when social security first became law. It was also a slur aimed at the GI bill.

If you value a system of voting and you lose, that is what we as a civil society use. But for you to cry foul like a whiny brat because others vote too, is absurd. I'd suggest instead of blaming those who didn't cause the mess, demand accountability from those who did, instead of protecting them like the Pope protecting child molesters.

"let them eat cake" is bullshit, and for the people who advocate that don't understand that that attitude will, even eventually fuck them over as well.

Now, you thumb your nose at the poor, fine, grow some fucking balls and the next time you run into a garbage collector or dishwasher or bus driver or janitor, go up to them face to face and call them a piece of shit looser. And if you think low payed people are losers DONT use their services. Don't have someone pick up your trash. Dont expect clean plates when you eat out. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I am sick of your bullshit that low pay means we are commies wanting to rob you. FUCK OFF!

Your poor me daddy warbucks bullshit is just that, BULL FUCKING SHIT! There are plenty of rich people who do not think like you, and plenty who see the economy as being something we are all part of and not the monopoly owned by people with money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Our economic pie is

Quote:
Our economic pie is not fixed. The top 1% having $X does not prevent you from producing and making money. The biggest thing that stops you is your own mind.

Stop projecting your utopia bullshit on me. I am not going to apologize for having an honest job. You want to act like a snob I will treat you like the snob you are acting like.

This is not a one class system. It is not all poor, OR all rich. It is a 3 class system and you don't own a fucking monopoly on it.

You are out of your fucking mind if you think the pay gap can continue to explode, and too stupid to see that if that continues, even you will suffer. There is a welfare state, and the bottom two classes are supporting the tax breaks of the uber rich.

Please explain to me if everyone lives in a mansion, then who is the maid? Who is the trash collector? Huh?

I am valuable and needed and I am tired of your bullshit looking down on people like me. You know damned well there is no physical way you could do everything from being the owner, to building the roads the product comes to you on, to running the register to cleaning the building all at the same time all by yourself.

Our open market will ALWAYS be a mix of ALL the classes, and the majority of our population resides in the bottom two. You are not the only  class in this country, get the fuck over yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:EXC

Brian37 wrote:

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist.

So are you. You see the poor and those with no jobs skills as being highly morally superior to the rich and professionals. You want to advance their cause. You want to support them as they breed as much as they please.

Welfare incentivizes the poor to have more babies. How is that not social Darwinism for your morally superior class?

Brian37 wrote:

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was that the only role of government was to protect private property rights. It is not to step aside entirely. Somalia is Somalia because the warlords do not respect any private property rights and there is no military or police to oppose them. They either extort money from business people (Socialism) or they expropriate business entirely(Communism).

Brian37 wrote:

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

When you look at when the use of force is used in your philosopy vs. Ayn's, it's easy to see who is the militant bully.

Brian37 wrote:

The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that.

Yes. The welfare/entitlement class. They are the majority now. The Dems have got a majority of Americans dependant on government and paying no income tax. So they now will have a monopoly of power until Atlas Shrugs and then the massive debt bankrupts all government.

You are so fucking full of shit. So who bailed out the cars and banks? ME and the rest of the 99%, so don't fucking give me a lecture on welfare. You have assholes like Papa John bitching about 14cents when their employees cant afford health care and you want me to have sympathy for billionaires? Must be some good fucking crack you are smoking.

NOW that "welfare" bullshit was pulled after WW2 when we had national projects bringing highways and electricity and phones to the mass public. We had higher tax rates and cheap higher education. If idiots with your mindset had had their way back then none of that would have happened.

Warren Buffet, Nick Hanour and Suzie Orman would all say you are full of shit.

What is bankrupting our government are people like you and the corporate handouts on the backs of the rest of us.

The pricks who put us in this economic mess were NOT the middle class and working poor. The pricks who did this were the people on Wall Street who made bets on both sides win or lose where they won, even when they lost.

Again, this is OUR government, not yours, not mine, OURS. This government is not "of the money, for the money, and fuck everyone else". And since I have the right to vote, you can go fuck yourself if you think the rest of us are losers. Societies that have a tendency to look down on others long term usually have their asses handed to them.

You are out of your mind if you think the middle class and working poor should trust the people who caused this with "no rules", which would be worse than what we have now which is "we write the rules because we have money". Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on meth.

And your "welfare" argument was used when social security first became law. It was also a slur aimed at the GI bill.

If you value a system of voting and you lose, that is what we as a civil society use. But for you to cry foul like a whiny brat because others vote too, is absurd. I'd suggest instead of blaming those who didn't cause the mess, demand accountability from those who did, instead of protecting them like the Pope protecting child molesters.

"let them eat cake" is bullshit, and for the people who advocate that don't understand that that attitude will, even eventually fuck them over as well.

Now, you thumb your nose at the poor, fine, grow some fucking balls and the next time you run into a garbage collector or dishwasher or bus driver or janitor, go up to them face to face and call them a piece of shit looser. And if you think low payed people are losers DONT use their services. Don't have someone pick up your trash. Dont expect clean plates when you eat out. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I am sick of your bullshit that low pay means we are commies wanting to rob you. FUCK OFF!

Your poor me daddy warbucks bullshit is just that, BULL FUCKING SHIT! There are plenty of rich people who do not think like you, and plenty who see the economy as being something we are all part of and not the monopoly owned by people with money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no point of responding to any of this. You make up 100% of your straw man attacks. Since when would Ayn Rand or any libertarian in agreement with her support corporate bailouts?

The financial crisis was cause by massive intervention in the market by government(Fannie & Freedie, The Fed giving money to banks to loan, preasure to lend in low income areas).

The government did not have to intervene in the market so people could have phones, roads and electricity. Everyone has cell phones now, the government didn't need to do anything except regulate public airways.

You and Vastet live in a world of delusion as bad as any theist ever could.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:You are so

Brian37 wrote:

You are so fucking full of shit. So who bailed out the cars and banks? ME and the rest of the 99%, so don't fucking give me a lecture on welfare.

Bush and Obama did with a democratic congress. The people who paid for it are people who pay income taxes. The top 10% of income earners paid 70.5% of the bill, the top 10%-25% paid 17% of the bill, the top 25%-50% paid 11% of the bill and those of you in the bottom 50% paid 2.3% of the bill.  

Brian37 wrote:

You have assholes like Papa John bitching about 14cents when their employees cant afford health care and you want me to have sympathy for billionaires? Must be some good fucking crack you are smoking.

You should tip your pizza delivery person better so they can afford health insurance.

 

Brian37 wrote:

NOW that "welfare" bullshit was pulled after WW2 when we had national projects bringing highways and electricity and phones to the mass public. We had higher tax rates and cheap higher education. If idiots with your mindset had had their way back then none of that would have happened.

I fully support higher tax rates on those who are not paying their fair share. If you are paying less than 20% of your income in taxes, your taxes should be raised, at least until we cut back spending. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Warren Buffet, Nick Hanour and Suzie Orman would all say you are full of shit.

So? Why should I care? Guess what, millionaires and billionaires have as diverse political viewpoints as everyone else. Peter Thiel, David Koch, Charles Koch , Paul Singer, Cliff Asness would probably agree with much of what I have to say. Imagine that, billionaires are human beings too, who would have thought. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

What is bankrupting our government are people like you and the corporate handouts on the backs of the rest of us.

Which politician that I voted for supports corporate handouts? Did the politicians you vote for vote against them?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And your "welfare" argument was used when social security first became law. It was also a slur aimed at the GI bill.

The critics of social security were right. The program has become impossibly expensive and is failing to pay for itself. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you value a system of voting and you lose, that is what we as a civil society use. But for you to cry foul like a whiny brat because others vote too, is absurd.

Please quote one sentence from me where I whined about losing at the polls. I'll admit it, my side has lost elections my entire life, which is why it is mystifying that you accuse my side of being responsible for our problems when we don't have a single representative in government. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I'd suggest instead of blaming those who didn't cause the mess, demand accountability from those who did, instead of protecting them like the Pope protecting child molesters.

Which politicians voted for the bailouts? You should hold them accountable. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, you thumb your nose at the poor, fine, grow some fucking balls and the next time you run into a garbage collector or dishwasher or bus driver or janitor, go up to them face to face and call them a piece of shit looser.

Why would I call them a loser?

Brian37 wrote:
 

And if you think low payed people are losers DONT use their services. Don't have someone pick up your trash. Dont expect clean plates when you eat out. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I think their services are worth precisely the amount I pay them. If they don't think it is enough they are free to refuse to do it for that price. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of your bullshit that low pay means we are commies wanting to rob you. FUCK OFF!

No, I know several low paid people who don't want to rob from me. Not all libertarians are rich, indeed, many are not. You are a commie that wants to rob from me, you have said many times that the rich should pay higher wages or the government will force them to. But I do not assume that every person at your income level shares your views. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

There are plenty of rich people who do not think like you, and plenty who see the economy as being something we are all part of and not the monopoly owned by people with money.

You are as big a part of the economy as you decide to be. If you decide to be a dishwasher, your will never be as big a part of the economy as a tycoon. It is your choice how much you want to participate in the economy, you can participate in a lot of ways, or a few, by producing a lot of things or a few things. I don't care, it is your choice to do as you believe is best for you. Do you deny that you could be a bigger part of the economy IF YOU WANTED TO?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ayn Rand was a social Darwinist.

So are you. You see the poor and those with no jobs skills as being highly morally superior to the rich and professionals. You want to advance their cause. You want to support them as they breed as much as they please.

Welfare incentivizes the poor to have more babies. How is that not social Darwinism for your morally superior class?

Brian37 wrote:

No, we accept that WE are part of the same government. Your solution is for government to step aside. The problem is that serves the class plutocracy at the top, which is what the warlords of Somalia do.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was that the only role of government was to protect private property rights. It is not to step aside entirely. Somalia is Somalia because the warlords do not respect any private property rights and there is no military or police to oppose them. They either extort money from business people (Socialism) or they expropriate business entirely(Communism).

Brian37 wrote:

All Ayn Rand and people like you advocate is the bully mentality, only those with money should have rights. BULL FUCKING SHIT!

When you look at when the use of force is used in your philosopy vs. Ayn's, it's easy to see who is the militant bully.

Brian37 wrote:

The issue is abuse of power and monopolies of power, and there is only ONE CLASS causing that.

Yes. The welfare/entitlement class. They are the majority now. The Dems have got a majority of Americans dependant on government and paying no income tax. So they now will have a monopoly of power until Atlas Shrugs and then the massive debt bankrupts all government.

You are so fucking full of shit. So who bailed out the cars and banks? ME and the rest of the 99%, so don't fucking give me a lecture on welfare. You have assholes like Papa John bitching about 14cents when their employees cant afford health care and you want me to have sympathy for billionaires? Must be some good fucking crack you are smoking.

NOW that "welfare" bullshit was pulled after WW2 when we had national projects bringing highways and electricity and phones to the mass public. We had higher tax rates and cheap higher education. If idiots with your mindset had had their way back then none of that would have happened.

Warren Buffet, Nick Hanour and Suzie Orman would all say you are full of shit.

What is bankrupting our government are people like you and the corporate handouts on the backs of the rest of us.

The pricks who put us in this economic mess were NOT the middle class and working poor. The pricks who did this were the people on Wall Street who made bets on both sides win or lose where they won, even when they lost.

Again, this is OUR government, not yours, not mine, OURS. This government is not "of the money, for the money, and fuck everyone else". And since I have the right to vote, you can go fuck yourself if you think the rest of us are losers. Societies that have a tendency to look down on others long term usually have their asses handed to them.

You are out of your mind if you think the middle class and working poor should trust the people who caused this with "no rules", which would be worse than what we have now which is "we write the rules because we have money". Libertarians are nothing but Republicans on meth.

And your "welfare" argument was used when social security first became law. It was also a slur aimed at the GI bill.

If you value a system of voting and you lose, that is what we as a civil society use. But for you to cry foul like a whiny brat because others vote too, is absurd. I'd suggest instead of blaming those who didn't cause the mess, demand accountability from those who did, instead of protecting them like the Pope protecting child molesters.

"let them eat cake" is bullshit, and for the people who advocate that don't understand that that attitude will, even eventually fuck them over as well.

Now, you thumb your nose at the poor, fine, grow some fucking balls and the next time you run into a garbage collector or dishwasher or bus driver or janitor, go up to them face to face and call them a piece of shit looser. And if you think low payed people are losers DONT use their services. Don't have someone pick up your trash. Dont expect clean plates when you eat out. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I am sick of your bullshit that low pay means we are commies wanting to rob you. FUCK OFF!

Your poor me daddy warbucks bullshit is just that, BULL FUCKING SHIT! There are plenty of rich people who do not think like you, and plenty who see the economy as being something we are all part of and not the monopoly owned by people with money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no point of responding to any of this. You make up 100% of your straw man attacks. Since when would Ayn Rand or any libertarian in agreement with her support corporate bailouts?

The financial crisis was cause by massive intervention in the market by government(Fannie & Freedie, The Fed giving money to banks to loan, preasure to lend in low income areas).

The government did not have to intervene in the market so people could have phones, roads and electricity. Everyone has cell phones now, the government didn't need to do anything except regulate public airways.

You and Vastet live in a world of delusion as bad as any theist ever could.

 

Right, just like they did not have to tell factories during WW2 to retool private factories to make weapons. Damned good thing  that the evil bad government never stepped in. How well do you speak German?  Fuck seat belts while we are at it, what the fuck have they ever done?

Your stupid fucking problem is that you think that the majority of people who accept government help would take it if they didn't have to. But name me one CEO who wont take a tax break even if they didn't need it? You know how many times I have deducted my donations to charity? NEVER. So how does it feel to have a dishwasher make you look like a complete ass hat?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:The critics of social

Quote:
The critics of social security were right. The program has become impossibly expensive and is failing to pay for itself.

I would agree considering that when a entire nation's budget is a constant battle between priorities of respective parties. So when we fund private contractors for war while lying about the need for those wars, no wonder grandma has to eat cat food. Haliburton's shareholders are much more important.

There is not one member of congress that cannot pay for private health care, but a dishwasher like me pays their taxes and all they have to do to live off my dime for the rest of their lives is to serve one term.

Health care is expensive for the same reason the Pet Rock sold. It had nothing to do with anything helpful to society, It is simple greed.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Fact Check

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

And your "welfare" argument was used when social security first became law. It was also a slur aimed at the GI bill.

The critics of social security were right. The program has become impossibly expensive and is failing to pay for itself.

Social Security is paying for itself and is not now insolvent nor will it be over the next 20+ years.

"Payroll contributions along with interest and taxes will be more than enough to cover the cost of the program this year. Last year’s report projected that at the end of 2011, Social Security would have an accumulated surplus of around $2.7 trillion, which it now has. This year’s report will show that it will be even higher at the end of 2012." From - http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00628

See also the Trustees report - http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

What occurs in 2033 is the trust savings accounts are projected to run out leaving only the payroll taxes to fund it. This means in that year 75 -80 % would be funded by the taxes. Clearly, raising the social security tax by even 0.5% in the next few years would move that date further out. So too would higher employment rates.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Fact Check - Brian37

I asked you yes or no if you had ever read any of Ayn Rand in post #3.

Have you or not?

The reason I ask is many of your arguments are misplaced, misinformed or erroneous when discussing her philosophy.

And before you explode on me, it's a fair question just like believers ask in regard to whether we have read the Bible or not.

And for your information I am voting for Obama. I'm an independent with libertarian leaning. I side more with the Democrats lately for many reasons, including the Republicans have become the Christian Republicans. And they are sold on ideas that do not work.

One of Ayn Rand's ideas was, "in compromise only evil wins." Clearly the latest crop of Tea Bagger congressman follow this. It has gained Congress a 9-10% approval rating.

 Congress has become the major problem to any progress in the economy as well as in our society.

Changes are needed. Term limits, penalties for missing sessions, approval for overseas trips by the entire house or senate, mandatory recall elections when they miss too many sessions, a 250 day work year with only 2 weeks off plus federal holidays. If they get recalled for failure to attend sessions they lose all of their health care and all retirement benefits.

It is a privilege to serve in Congress and represent your constituents and these guys all have lost sight of that.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I think their services

Quote:
I think their services are worth precisely the amount I pay them. If they don't think it is enough they are free to refuse to do it for that price.

No shit do you think that.DUH.  So if supply and demand are supposed to dictate that concept then why is it the majority of people who don't own businesses at the mercy of the people who do?

BECAUSE YOU ARE A NARCISSISTIC ASSHOLE WHO THINKS MONEY EQUALS POWER! The problem is I agree with you. It isn't that they don't want to say FUCK YOU, THEY dont have the money pooled to challenge assholes like you.

Next time you THINK you are paying a fair wage to your lowest paid employee, OR a contractor who cleans your business. Instead of THINKING you are paying them enough HAVE THE FUCKING GUTS TO ASK THEM! You dont and you wont because the dictation of pay is not one of bargaining, it is itiots like you making competition between money in that class that use the rest of us as pawns.

If the free market were based like you imply it is, I would have no problem with it. But our economy is run of the rich for the rich by the rich, and you are a complete delusional narcissistic prick to think otherwise.

You think people in the middle class, much less the poor, like me can "bargain"? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You and Vastet

EXC wrote:


You and Vastet live in a world of delusion as bad as any theist ever could.

 

                                              You speak the truth.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Lol brian, people are pretty

Lol brian, people are pretty biased about their wages. Of course they will, on average, ask for more. Just asking them doesn't help anything.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

. I'm an independent with libertarian leaning. I side more with the Democrats lately for many reasons, including the Republicans have become the Christian Republicans. And they are sold on ideas that do not work.

  

That's pretty much my position. I tend to side with the left in most cases, even though I lean in the Libertarian direction.

However, when it comes to politicians and political parties in general, I tend to pretty much be an equal opportunity hater. I despise most political parties and their leaders : EQUALLY.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:EXC

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

EXC wrote:


You and Vastet live in a world of delusion as bad as any theist ever could.

 

                                              You speak the truth.

Cracheads joining together in common cause. ROTF

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I think

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think their services are worth precisely the amount I pay them. If they don't think it is enough they are free to refuse to do it for that price.

Yeah, and then they'd get fired and make even less money.  I imagine unskilled jobs rarely pay more than minimum wage.

While supporting minimum wage is not very libertarian of me, I fear eliminating it would be far worse--what are peoples' thoughts on this?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are as big a part of the economy as you decide to be. If you decide to be a dishwasher, your will never be as big a part of the economy as a tycoon. It is your choice how much you want to participate in the economy, you can participate in a lot of ways, or a few, by producing a lot of things or a few things. I don't care, it is your choice to do as you believe is best for you. Do you deny that you could be a bigger part of the economy IF YOU WANTED TO?

There is an upper limit on how much time people can devote to participating in the economy.  To increase your productivity once you reach that limit, you'd need to learn a new skill or come up with a new idea.  It'd also have to be something people would be willing to pay for.  Sadly, the people who would benefit from this the most may also be in the worst position to accomplish it.

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
blacklight915 wrote:Yeah,

blacklight915 wrote:

Yeah, and then they'd get fired and make even less money.  I imagine unskilled jobs rarely pay more than minimum wage.

While supporting minimum wage is not very libertarian of me, I fear eliminating it would be far worse--what are peoples' thoughts on this?

 

For the most part, the minimum wage is low enough that it is not binding, IOW it is low enough that most jobs pay at least a little more or wouldn't pay significantly less if there was no minimum wage law. So if you ask me whether there is a minimum wage law or not is irrelevant, since it seems to make people feel better you might as well leave it there. The only people it might harm are teenagers, but here in Ohio at least it is low enough that even teenagers are generally not willing to work that cheap. Even at under the table jobs like babysitting or lawn mowing teenagers charge more than minimum wage now a days. 

 

blacklight915 wrote:

There is an upper limit on how much time people can devote to participating in the economy.  To increase your productivity once you reach that limit, you'd need to learn a new skill or come up with a new idea.  It'd also have to be something people would be willing to pay for.  Sadly, the people who would benefit from this the most may also be in the worst position to accomplish it.

Well obviously if you want to make money becoming skilled at something useful is a logical way to do so. And what prevents people from becoming skilled other than themselves? Most companies are more than willing to offer training to ambitious employees, IME the most difficult thing is convincing people to take advantage of these opportunities. Entry level jobs are entry level, there are always obvious ways to progress from an entry level position to a more skilled one, whether you do what is necessary to do so depends on you. If you stay at entry level jobs your whole life, you can't be surprised with entry level pay.

And simply spending more time working is almost always the least efficient way to make more money. If you say you can't make more money because you don't have enough time to work more you are looking at the problem wrong. Instead, focus your efforts on producing the same amount in less time. That may require you to put your efforts into becoming more skilled or being creative finding new ways to produce more efficiently. Either way, it is up to you to do so and if you remain unskilled and continue to work entry level jobs indefinitely it is a result of your own decisions. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I think

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I think their services are worth precisely the amount I pay them. If they don't think it is enough they are free to refuse to do it for that price.

No shit do you think that.DUH.  So if supply and demand are supposed to dictate that concept then why is it the majority of people who don't own businesses at the mercy of the people who do?

In what way are you "at my mercy"? No one has to work for me if they do not want to for any reason. I'm not a slave owner. Get some self respect ffs and stop treating yourself like a slave. You are a man and you have a choice and you have power.

 

Brian37 wrote:

BECAUSE YOU ARE A NARCISSISTIC ASSHOLE WHO THINKS MONEY EQUALS POWER! The problem is I agree with you. It isn't that they don't want to say FUCK YOU, THEY dont have the money pooled to challenge assholes like you.

Money doesn't equal power, it is simply a useful medium for negotiations because most people want it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Next time you THINK you are paying a fair wage to your lowest paid employee, OR a contractor who cleans your business. Instead of THINKING you are paying them enough HAVE THE FUCKING GUTS TO ASK THEM! You dont and you wont because the dictation of pay is not one of bargaining, it is itiots like you making competition between money in that class that use the rest of us as pawns.

When I hire, I always ask the person being interviewed how much they want, sometimes they say a number less than I would have been willing to pay and it saves me money. If they say a number too high, I can always try to negotiate it down. I believe it gives my a much better bargaining position than if I state the amount first because once I say an amount, it will never go lower than that. I know some employers who take a different perspective and always offer the amount first because very few employees will be aggressive at negotiating up and most will simply accept the amount.  Different styles, can't say which is better. However, for anyone applying for a job I strongly suggest that whatever style your potential employer uses, try to negotiate up. Wages are often more flexible than people seem to believe.  

When I hire a contractor, I always ask them how much they charge...how the hell else would I do it? Of course, I almost always negotiate them down because I negotiate everything I can and most contractors have some flex in their prices.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the free market were based like you imply it is, I would have no problem with it. But our economy is run of the rich for the rich by the rich, and you are a complete delusional narcissistic prick to think otherwise.

You think people in the middle class, much less the poor, like me can "bargain"? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH!

And that is why you will never make more money. Your unwillingness to even attempt to negotiate leaves you at the mercy of living within other peoples demands. If you have something of value to offer and you know you are not being paid enough for it there is always room for negotiation. If you do not have anything of value to offer, I suggest you do something to improve the value of your labor. Obviously, if you are offering the same thing a thousand other people are, you are not in a good negotiating position. You have to find a way to distinguish yourself and make your labor more valuable to whoever you are selling it to. The same way I have to make my business more appealing to potential customers if I am unable/unwilling to charge lower prices than my competitors. The same way your boss has to make the restaurant more appealing to potential customers to make sure they eat there instead of someplace else. That goal can be done through lower prices or superior product/service or simply a better customer experience.

There is no reason for you to view your labor differently than any other product you might be selling. When you take a job, you are selling your labor. Maybe you went the Save-A-Lot route and sold inferior product really cheap to sell a lot of it quickly. Or you can go the Whole Foods route and sell a much higher quality product for a lot more money. Or you can do something in between. You control both the quality of your labor and how much you charge for it. The only power your boss has over you is the power you have granted him. Start applying for other jobs right now and you will have two employers vying for your labor and you can go to whichever one offers you closest to what you want.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And what

Beyond Saving wrote:

And what prevents people from becoming skilled other than themselves? Most companies are more than willing to offer training to ambitious employees, IME the most difficult thing is convincing people to take advantage of these opportunities.

While I agree that peoples' outlooks/attitudes are often what holds them back, external forces play an undeniable role. The single biggest factor is that people don't get to choose the circumstances into which they are born. It is in no way your fault if you are born into poverty, or to bad parents, or mentally retarted.

I have to go now, but I'll try to add more soon.

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
blacklight915 wrote:While I

blacklight915 wrote:

While I agree that peoples' outlooks/attitudes are often what holds them back, external forces play an undeniable role. The single biggest factor is that people don't get to choose the circumstances into which they are born. It is in no way your fault if you are born into poverty, or to bad parents, or mentally retarted.

I have to go now, but I'll try to add more soon.

Agreed. Everyone has obstacles and all of those obstacles are different, some harder than others. Well guess what, life isn't fair. 

Being born in the USA, Canada, UK, Australia or any other first world mostly free country gives you a significant advantage over the vast majority of the global population. You can become successful regardless of how impoverished the family you are born in is. In many other countries, people don't have that opportunity. Is it easier if you are born in a wealthy family? Sure. Is it impossible if you are not? No. 

I feel really bad for people born in 3rd world countries, where they really don't have a choice. They live in poverty because there is nothing and no realistic possibilities of having anything. I have no sympathy for people like Brian37 who is a perfectly physically capable person and while slightly crazy on political issues, I believe certainly intelligent enough to work at a better paying job. He just doesn't because he doesn't try, which is fine by me, but if you are not trying I don't see how you have any grounds to bitch about it.

Give me a story of someone who busted their ass trying to build a business or climb the ladder and some horrible disease or accident happens leaving them incapable of working and I have plenty of sympathy. Or the person who builds a business and it is wiped out by a hurricane/fire/tornado and they lose literally everything. Although, IME most of those types of people don't walk around demanding sympathy and often don't want it and if physically capable will succeed in a different industry. 

Certainly there is a percentage of people out there who are completely mentally or physically incapable of playing an active role in any economic system. These are not the people I am talking about and make up a small part of the population. I am talking about the majority of people who are capable of going to Walmart, using their government issue foodstamps without assistance, taking showers all by themselves and generally capable of taking care of basic life functions without significant assistance. Obviously, if you are in a wheelchair with drool coming out of the corner of your mouth and if left alone wouldn't be capable of microwaving your own food, that is not what I am talking about. 

If you can figure out how to create your own facebook account and update it every 15 minutes to tell everyone how incredibly boring your life is, if you can memorize the democrat party talking points and spout them on dozens of forums across the internet everyday, if you can roll a joint without looking, rule the day on xbox games and laugh at the newbs, carry on 3 or 4 text message conversations at a time or post stupid videos on youtube, then I am talking about you. 

Life throws curve balls all the time. You can bitch about your problems, or you can find ways to deal with them. Very few problems are impossible to deal with, some might be harder to deal with than others, so what? So your parents sucked- get rid of them. So the place you are born in sucks, move. So your education is lacking, get one. So you don't have a lot of money, find ways to raise it. What is really sad is that I often offer concrete advice on exactly how to solve such problems and it is often ignored. If you have a problem that you can't find a solution to, go on the internet and find people who have dealt with it, ask them for ideas, I have yet to meet the person who has financial success that isn't willing to offer ideas or even mentor someone who wants to succeed but doesn't have the knowledge/experience. There are entire radio shows, tv shows, and websites dedicated specifically to the subject. There are hundreds of self-improvement books out there. Whatever problems you have, you are not the first person to have them, learn from others and you can save yourself a lot of pain. But you can't succeed at anything if you don't try. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Agreed.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Agreed. Everyone has obstacles and all of those obstacles are different, some harder than others. Well guess what, life isn't fair. 

Being born in the USA, Canada, UK, Australia or any other first world mostly free country gives you a significant advantage over the vast majority of the global population. You can become successful regardless of how impoverished the family you are born in is. In many other countries, people don't have that opportunity. Is it easier if you are born in a wealthy family? Sure. Is it impossible if you are not? No. 

I feel really bad for people born in 3rd world countries, where they really don't have a choice. They live in poverty because there is nothing and no realistic possibilities of having anything. I have no sympathy for people like Brian37 who is a perfectly physically capable person and while slightly crazy on political issues, I believe certainly intelligent enough to work at a better paying job. He just doesn't because he doesn't try, which is fine by me, but if you are not trying I don't see how you have any grounds to bitch about it.

Give me a story of someone who busted their ass trying to build a business or climb the ladder and some horrible disease or accident happens leaving them incapable of working and I have plenty of sympathy. Or the person who builds a business and it is wiped out by a hurricane/fire/tornado and they lose literally everything. Although, IME most of those types of people don't walk around demanding sympathy and often don't want it and if physically capable will succeed in a different industry. 

Certainly there is a percentage of people out there who are completely mentally or physically incapable of playing an active role in any economic system. These are not the people I am talking about and make up a small part of the population. I am talking about the majority of people who are capable of going to Walmart, using their government issue foodstamps without assistance, taking showers all by themselves and generally capable of taking care of basic life functions without significant assistance. Obviously, if you are in a wheelchair with drool coming out of the corner of your mouth and if left alone wouldn't be capable of microwaving your own food, that is not what I am talking about. 

If you can figure out how to create your own facebook account and update it every 15 minutes to tell everyone how incredibly boring your life is, if you can memorize the democrat party talking points and spout them on dozens of forums across the internet everyday, if you can roll a joint without looking, rule the day on xbox games and laugh at the newbs, carry on 3 or 4 text message conversations at a time or post stupid videos on youtube, then I am talking about you. 

Life throws curve balls all the time. You can bitch about your problems, or you can find ways to deal with them. Very few problems are impossible to deal with, some might be harder to deal with than others, so what? So your parents sucked- get rid of them. So the place you are born in sucks, move. So your education is lacking, get one. So you don't have a lot of money, find ways to raise it. What is really sad is that I often offer concrete advice on exactly how to solve such problems and it is often ignored. If you have a problem that you can't find a solution to, go on the internet and find people who have dealt with it, ask them for ideas, I have yet to meet the person who has financial success that isn't willing to offer ideas or even mentor someone who wants to succeed but doesn't have the knowledge/experience. There are entire radio shows, tv shows, and websites dedicated specifically to the subject. There are hundreds of self-improvement books out there. Whatever problems you have, you are not the first person to have them, learn from others and you can save yourself a lot of pain. But you can't succeed at anything if you don't try.

 

This is a fantastic post; do you mind if I save a copy of it on my computer? I'm not trying to steal it or anything--I just really like it Smiling

I'd just like to add two (probably rather obvious) things:

1. The fact that life is unfair doesn't mean we should give up on trying to improve it for everyone.

2. A good bitching session can sometimes clear your head and make it easier to focus on solving your problems.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Right, just

Brian37 wrote:

Right, just like they did not have to tell factories during WW2 to retool private factories to make weapons. Damned good thing  that the evil bad government never stepped in. How well do you speak German?  Fuck seat belts while we are at it, what the fuck have they ever done?

Your making a strawman out of Ayn Rand again. She supported government intervention for National defence and police to protect property. And you do know that a lot of capitalist got rich selling to the government during all our wars.

I paraglide and my mother doesn't want me to do so because of the dangers. So should government be my mother and prevent me from doing anything dangerous? I want to be an adult, I want to invest my own money for retirement and not rely on the ponzi scheme(AKA social security). If I become old and broke, it's my fucking life, not yours.

I seriously don't think that libs like you have ever grown out of your infantile mentality. That's why you want the nanny state to protect you from everything dangerous. Why can't you grow up and accept a world full of risks and live on your own terms?

 

Brian37 wrote:
Your stupid fucking problem is that you think that the majority of people who accept government help would take it if they didn't have to. But name me one CEO who wont take a tax break even if they didn't need it? You know how many times I have deducted my donations to charity? NEVER. So how does it feel to have a dishwasher make you look like a complete ass hat?

OK, so the rich are just as selfish as the poor. So what? Instead of 'The virtue of selfishness', Ayn should have written 'The reality of selfishness'.

The problem is your altruism doesn't work. It doesn't solve any systemic problems of poverty and class division. It's at best a temporary opiate for you and the recipient.

Look at all the shit made in China. Why can't this stuff be made here by all the unemployed Americans? Because your kind of altruism leads to a permanent class of people that are dependant on the government and charity. Do you ever consider the unitended consequences of Charity? Or do you just pat yourself on the back for giving a bleeding man an asprin instead of a something to actually stop the bleeding?

So we have this insane situation of our government borrowing massively from China to pay for food stamps for all the Americans that can't work because of minimum wage laws and other leftist insanities.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
blacklight915 wrote:This is

blacklight915 wrote:

This is a fantastic post; do you mind if I save a copy of it on my computer? I'm not trying to steal it or anything--I just really like it Smiling

I'm flattered, go ahead and steal it, I operate under the assumption that 100% of what is posted on the internet will be stolen sooner or later. 

 

blacklight915 wrote:

I'd just like to add two (probably rather obvious) things:

1. The fact that life is unfair doesn't mean we should give up on trying to improve it for everyone.

2. A good bitching session can sometimes clear your head and make it easier to focus on solving your problems.

Agreed, although it is impossible to really help someone who isn't willing to take a proactive role in helping themselves. As for bitching, I engage in the practice regularly. Everyone should have a friend who is willing to listen to your bitching and then tell you to get your shit together. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

I'm flattered, go ahead and steal it, I operate under the assumption that 100% of what is posted on the internet will be stolen sooner or later. 

 

I feel the same way about what I post on the internet. If something I say is helpful and someone wants to use it, feel free, especially if it helps someone deconvert.

It would sound more convincing for them to say it than to say : "Well, Harleysportster once said." Can you imagine the reaction from a theist ?

"Your gonna listen to a guy named Harleysportster ?"  Smiling

That reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad, where the drug lord asks Walter White what his name is and Walter says " You can call me Heisenberg."  Drug lord responds : " HEISENBERG ? ! "  LOL. Your in a room full of drug dealers and addicts that all have names like J-Rock, 8-Ball and Road Lizard and someone is gonna use the name Heisenberg for a street name.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: That

harleysportster wrote:

 

That reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad, where the drug lord asks Walter White what his name is and Walter says " You can call me Heisenberg."  Drug lord responds : " HEISENBERG ? ! "  LOL. Your in a room full of drug dealers and addicts that all have names like J-Rock, 8-Ball and Road Lizard and someone is gonna use the name Heisenberg for a street name.

                             

   Yeah, Bryan Cranston is excellent in that part, and Anna Gunn who portrays his wife Skyler is just so ....mmmmm.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3470
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 

That reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad, where the drug lord asks Walter White what his name is and Walter says " You can call me Heisenberg."  Drug lord responds : " HEISENBERG ? ! "  LOL. Your in a room full of drug dealers and addicts that all have names like J-Rock, 8-Ball and Road Lizard and someone is gonna use the name Heisenberg for a street name.

                             

   Yeah, Bryan Cranston is excellent in that part, and Anna Gunn who portrays his wife Skyler is just so ....mmmmm.

sorry to go off-topic--well, not really, because this topic is getting tiresome--but i just started watching that show, and i have to ask, is his wife supposed to be the mother of his son?  because she looks 15 years older than him, TOPS.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And that is why you will

"And that is why you will never make more money. Your unwillingness to even attempt to negotiate leaves you at the mercy of living within other peoples demands."

The process you suggest works, in fact doesn't. If you have 20 applicants of relatively equal value to you, and one of them agrees to work for min wage while the others all attempt to get varyingly higher levels of pay, then the average employer will take the cheaper employee (you imply you will as well).
Because there are more prospective employees than there are jobs, this scenario will repeat itself without end. Significantly limiting the so-called ability of a prospective employee to negotiate their wage. Simply attempting to negotiate a wage automatically puts you behind anyone willing to take what is offered.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Because there

Vastet wrote:
Because there are more prospective employees than there are jobs,

But this situation couldn't possible have anything to do with people like Mr. 30 kids or Octomom. People with no job skills just kind of magically appear in the job market.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:ProzacDeathWish

iwbiek wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 

That reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad, where the drug lord asks Walter White what his name is and Walter says " You can call me Heisenberg."  Drug lord responds : " HEISENBERG ? ! "  LOL. Your in a room full of drug dealers and addicts that all have names like J-Rock, 8-Ball and Road Lizard and someone is gonna use the name Heisenberg for a street name.

                             

   Yeah, Bryan Cranston is excellent in that part, and Anna Gunn who portrays his wife Skyler is just so ....mmmmm.

sorry to go off-topic--well, not really, because this topic is getting tiresome--but i just started watching that show, and i have to ask, is his wife supposed to be the mother of his son?  because she looks 15 years older than him, TOPS.

Yeah she is supposed to be the mother. At least there is never any mention of an ex-wife or previous marriage in the show. That's the reason that White or "Heisenberg" is doing all of this, for his family.  I still think the reaction to Heisenberg was hysterically funny and I do not have much of a sense of humor. I think it was just the context of the situation.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Because there are more prospective employees than there are jobs,

But this situation couldn't possible have anything to do with people like Mr. 30 kids or Octomom. People with no job skills just kind of magically appear in the job market.

It also couldn't possibly have anything to do with a few hundred multi-billionaires who sit on their money instead of investing in new markets and products. Because jobs just magically appear out of thin air.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Bonus irony points for the

^ Bonus irony points for the fact that North America has an aging population, and people who have a bunch of kids are not only a significant minority, but have a beneficial impact on the future growth and sustainability of our society (along with immigrants).
Just because there's 3 odd billion too many people in the East does not mean that it is equally overcrowded in the West. About 3/4's of the global population is in Africa and Asia. For shits and giggles, I'll even give a link.
http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_continent.aspx

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:"And that is

Vastet wrote:
"And that is why you will never make more money. Your unwillingness to even attempt to negotiate leaves you at the mercy of living within other peoples demands." The process you suggest works, in fact doesn't. If you have 20 applicants of relatively equal value to you, and one of them agrees to work for min wage while the others all attempt to get varyingly higher levels of pay, then the average employer will take the cheaper employee (you imply you will as well). Because there are more prospective employees than there are jobs, this scenario will repeat itself without end. Significantly limiting the so-called ability of a prospective employee to negotiate their wage. Simply attempting to negotiate a wage automatically puts you behind anyone willing to take what is offered.

 

Um, by the time you are talking wages either you already work for the person or they have already offered you the job out of the 10, 100 or 1000 or however many other applicants there were. Obviously, they offered you the job over everyone else for some reason, presumably, they see more value in you than everyone else. They didn't just flip a coin (usually). Is the employer going to get offended if you try to negotiate a higher wage and fire you? Maybe if you are bothering them every week, but no, you are not going to be fired for it.

Worst case scenario they say "no" and you are in the same situation you would be in if you didn't try. Now if you try a hardcore negotiating tactic like saying "This other job offered me $x and unless you match it I am quitting" you have to be prepared for your boss to say "ok, your last paycheck will be in the mail" So I wouldn't do that unless you actually do have the other job, or unless you like to gamble.

How do I know it works? I have done it, on both sides of the desk. Once as an employee I quit over a 25 cent an hour dispute because my employer was unwilling to give me the raise retroactively. The next morning they called me and asked me to come back. Why? Because they did the math and giving me the $20 I demanded was a hell of a lot cheaper than hiring someone else and they knew I was an efficient worker. If you do a good job and your employer likes you, they will pay a little extra to keep you over an unknown quantity.

Hiring new people is an expensive and time consuming process, then you have a training period where the worker is pretty much worthless and often, people will quit in the first couple of months because they don't like the job, or some other job they applied for finally gets around to making an offer. People who are unemployed tend to apply to a lot of jobs and accept the first one that comes along even while interviewing for jobs they prefer. Or you hire someone who turns out to be incapable of showing up for work on time and you have to fire them and start over. For the employer, dealing with these realities takes time, effort and money.

As an employee, you can take advantage of that fact. You have demonstrated your value to your employer and your employer is likely willing to offer a little extra to keep you around instead of having to hire new people. If you are a new hire and you haggle over the wage a little, what that tells me is that you are serious about working for me and you take your job seriously, two qualities I look for. I might not give you everything you ask for, but I will probably budge a little (especially since if I offered a number I certainly lowballed). Of course, if I am paying you above average I expect above average results, something I would make clear and if you fail to meet expectations I have no problem firing. 

If you allow people to walk all over you, they will. Whether it is your boss, a coworker, a customer, a friend, a spouse or some random fucker on the street. Know the value of your labor, how much others in your field get paid and if you provide above average results demand above average pay. And when you approach your boss, tell them that you believe you produce above average results and that is why you expect more. Phrase it as, "I want a raise because I provide A, B and C for this company better than anyone else", "I increase your profit x% by doing this". Of course, you have to do an honest appraisal of the quality of your labor, if you are not above average your boss is unlikely to heed your demands.

If you are not currently more valuable to your boss than some random person filling your job, you should find ways to make yourself more valuable. If you can't think of anything, ASK!, what a radical concept. Tell your boss you love working there but you need more money, "what can I do to help out more?" Or "Hey, I love working in this industry and really want to learn more about it, can I be more involved?" Your boss will have a fucking orgasm, workers with any kind of initiative or positive attitude are so rare. Chances are that at some point your boss was in your shoes, they have probably been at the bottom too and have nothing but respect for people who want to improve themselves and move up.  

Workers who show up to serve time with a bad attitude, gripe about management and take no pride in their labor are not going to be rewarded. Honestly, the only reason employers don't fire those types of workers immediately is because the hiring process is a pain in the ass and there are so many of that type of worker that you replace one warm body with another. 

Know your value, have confidence and grow some balls. When you go out on a limb with confidence, you will sometimes be shot down. That is ok, pick yourself up and go back with the same confidence. Some people might chalk you up as an arrogant asshole, but for the most part, people respond to confidence and have a hard time saying no to it. The person who is confident and persistent will get what they want quite often when dealing with other people.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Um, by

Beyond Saving wrote:

Um, by the time you are talking wages either you already work for the person or they have already offered you the job out of the 10, 100 or 1000 or however many other applicants there were. Obviously, they offered you the job over everyone else for some reason, presumably, they see more value in you than everyone else. They didn't just flip a coin (usually). Is the employer going to get offended if you try to negotiate a higher wage and fire you? Maybe if you are bothering them every week, but no, you are not going to be fired for it.

 

Well, it may have worked for you at some time, it has never worked for me.  First - when I apply, the request is often for resume and a cover letter which includes desired salary.  I have been asked my salary requirements in the first interview.  It is tricky for me - do I go with what I know they are willing to pay or do I ask for what I'm worth.  Maybe it worked for you as a male, in your market, but as a female IT person - never.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Worst case scenario they say "no" and you are in the same situation you would be in if you didn't try. Now if you try a hardcore negotiating tactic like saying "This other job offered me $x and unless you match it I am quitting" you have to be prepared for your boss to say "ok, your last paycheck will be in the mail" So I wouldn't do that unless you actually do have the other job, or unless you like to gamble.

 

Never worked for anyone I have ever known.  You claim it has for you - fine.  You must live on Jupiter.  When 100s of people are applying for a position with stated wages that are clearly underpaid for the amount of expertise and experience in the job description, the employer does not have to negotiate with anyone.  And if you walk - so what?  I know of places where their network support is long distance - company here in Portland, techie in Juarez.  And the guy in Juarez is a lot less expensive than anyone they can hire locally. 

And I don't know how many choose not to hire rather than hire someone who is capable of learning the job in less than a month.  A technical IT position with specific application support that only one or two industries use requires not a month to learn the application - that is usually less than a week - but a month to learn the business processes of that organization.  So they go through the expensive process of advertising, reviewing applications/resumes, interviewing, and then - for whatever reason - don't hire any of the very qualified candidates.  This is private and public organizations, small and large businesses, corporations and sole proprietors, you name it.  It makes no sense to me, but I have seen this many, many, many times in the past few years.

In this job market almost no one quits in the first few months.  Are you kidding?  If I had one job offer, I'd take it and I would be real reluctant to let go of a so-so job regardless of the possibility of a maybe job.  Even the baristas are hesitant to rock their boat.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote:Well, it may have

cj wrote:

Well, it may have worked for you at some time, it has never worked for me.  First - when I apply, the request is often for resume and a cover letter which includes desired salary.  I have been asked my salary requirements in the first interview.  It is tricky for me - do I go with what I know they are willing to pay or do I ask for what I'm worth.  Maybe it worked for you as a male, in your market, but as a female IT person - never.

 

Depends on how bad you need the job. If you really need it go smack dab in the middle, if you can live without go on the high end of what you think they will be willing to pay, or I would probably simply write negotiable on the application because I become a dick when employers become dicks. The main point of a resume is simply to weed through and eliminate people, I tended to get my resume eliminated a lot and made up for it by pestering them by phone and in person until they agreed to interview me just to shut me up. (I can be exceptionally annoying) At which point it is 100% salesmanship, which is a skill that many people are lacking. 

 

cj wrote:

Never worked for anyone I have ever known.  You claim it has for you - fine.  You must live on Jupiter.  When 100s of people are applying for a position with stated wages that are clearly underpaid for the amount of expertise and experience in the job description, the employer does not have to negotiate with anyone.  And if you walk - so what?  I know of places where their network support is long distance - company here in Portland, techie in Juarez.  And the guy in Juarez is a lot less expensive than anyone they can hire locally. 

You have never known anyone who has negotiated for a raise?!? Have you ever sat down with an employer and asked for one? 

 

If you are unemployed for a length of time and simply desperate for short term income you might have to accept low pay. That doesn't mean that once you work there you have to stay. Take the low pay and start applying for new jobs, then you can flat out tell them "I am currently making $X I am worth more" then it is clear that you have a definite floor. If you are in a field that is being heavily outsourced, consider working in a different field. You will never make a ton of money working in a field that doesn't have much need of workers.

Or you can do some research and find out where other people are making the most money and where the demand for your services is high. With the internet it is pretty easy to get some kind of idea of what the average pay is in any industry and approximately what the likely top is and where pay is higher. I didn't end up in Ohio because I loved the state, I moved here because I was a greedy SOB and got the best offer here. And if the approximate top pay in your industry isn't enough for you then either you need to switch industries or find a way to really revolutionize it. 

 

 

cj wrote:

 

 

And I don't know how many choose not to hire rather than hire someone who is capable of learning the job in less than a month.  A technical IT position with specific application support that only one or two industries use requires not a month to learn the application - that is usually less than a week - but a month to learn the business processes of that organization.  So they go through the expensive process of advertising, reviewing applications/resumes, interviewing, and then - for whatever reason - don't hire any of the very qualified candidates.  This is private and public organizations, small and large businesses, corporations and sole proprietors, you name it.  It makes no sense to me, but I have seen this many, many, many times in the past few years.

I've seen this too, sometimes in corporations they have stupid rules requiring they advertise a position outside the company even if they plan on hiring someone internally. Or sometimes things change, you think you want to hire someone and either realize you don't need the person or that no one is willing to work for a price you are willing to pay. And sometimes, people who run businesses are simply idiots. 

 

cj wrote:

In this job market almost no one quits in the first few months.  Are you kidding?  If I had one job offer, I'd take it and I would be real reluctant to let go of a so-so job regardless of the possibility of a maybe job.  Even the baristas are hesitant to rock their boat

Sure you take the job, but my whole point is just because you are working, don't stop looking for something better. If you are trying to negotiate without leverage, which if the employer knows you have been unemployed for awhile and are probably willing to agree to anything you have no leverage. Get the job, do your best at it and find something new. Then sell your labor to the highest bidder. Bad economy or not, people are still climbing the ladders, it can be done, you just have to be persistent and be better than your competition. And whatever field you are in when they have those stupid conferences, conventions or expo's or whatever your industry has go to them and meet people on a personal level. By far the easiest way to get a job is to know someone, sending out resumes is always a crapshoot especially in today's climate.

And if you are working a job and can't get a raise and no one is willing to pay you what you think you are worth, consider working for yourself, then you will find out exactly how much your labor is worth. It is always possible that your labor isn't worth as much as you think it should be.  

 

Regardless of your industry negotiating and the ability to sell yourself is the most important skill set you can have, and it is a skill set that needs to be studied and learned. Here are a few books I would recommend on the subjects. 

http://www.amazon.com/Negotiating-Your-Salary-Minute-Revised/dp/1580083102

http://www.amazon.com/How-Sell-Yourself-Joe-Girard/dp/0446385018

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Room-Yourself-Ideas-Audience/dp/0385520433

 

and one specifically for women in the workforce, haven't read it myself but just bought it out of curiosity.

http://www.amazon.com/Pushback-Smart-Women-Ask-Up/dp/1118104900

 

There are literally hundreds of books on the subject, so I guess a lot of us live on Jupiter. You should come join us. 

I'm not saying it is going to work every time, but you don't know until you try and if done properly and in a polite way there is virtually no downside to trying. The important thing to do is to be able to construct a sound argument for why you deserve the raise. That requires you to be well informed on how the company is doing, how much your labor actually contributes to profitability, how much others in your position make and a realistic appraisal of your efforts compared to your coworkers. If you sit in your bosses office and say "I deserve a raise because I've been here X years", or "because I want it" you are not going to get far. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X