x
Click to expand

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:5/29/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12581
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8757 total,  9875 ,  1118
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 53% (53/100)
Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:109801
Times Content Favorited:164 times
Total Comments Made:2411
FJ Points:884
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#113 - "If we could control black people." There … 05/11/2015 on black tumblr 0
#111 - No, there wouldn't be any news coverage, and no cities would b… 05/11/2015 on black tumblr +1
#109 - Since when has anybody tried to take away your legal right to … 05/11/2015 on black tumblr +5
#216 - Severe starvation also severely weakens the immune system, so … 05/11/2015 on Morbid photographs comp +1
#215 - It's a girl, and she was still talking even after her eyes had… 05/11/2015 on Morbid photographs comp 0
#214 - It's a girl. And yeah, it's a very sad story. She wou…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/11/2015 on Morbid photographs comp 0
#220 - grogreg (05/14/2015) [-]
But why are her eyes so black?
User avatar #221 - Deeticky (05/15/2015) [-]
I think it was a combination of a lot of factors. My best guess is that she likely had broken capillaries in her eyes due to the severe stress of her situation. broken capillaries cause blood to pool under the eye membrane.

Here's a video of some of her last words if you feel like crying. (She says bye to her parents and tells her mother that she loves her). www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0_K_3yz-QA
#541 - Have a little empathy, bro. People do stupid things all the ti… 05/11/2015 on Morbid Photographs #2 0
#120 - i wasn't a hundred percent sure, since Disney ditched a lot of…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/10/2015 on Don't use excessive force 0
User avatar #123 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
actually the old canon more or less exists as a resource for writers, they can take whatever they want and make it canon. basically it's S-canon.
User avatar #138 - Tyranitar (05/10/2015) [-]
Only everything post-Return of the Jedi is confirmed non-canon. Most, if not all, Maul survival stories took place between the trilogies, so whichever one was canon before should still be so.
User avatar #145 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
As far as I know the clone wars show one is fully canon, anything other than that isn't. That's fascinating though, I thought everything was a resource?
User avatar #171 - Tyranitar (05/10/2015) [-]
Well, I know for a fact Clone Wars is still canon, because Star Wars Rebels, which is considered canon and came after the change, is connected to it.
User avatar #175 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
i know.
#114 - Dooku and Maul were dead by the time that Anakin became Darth …  [+] (7 new replies) 05/10/2015 on Don't use excessive force 0
User avatar #118 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
Maul's survival is canon.
User avatar #120 - Deeticky (05/10/2015) [-]
i wasn't a hundred percent sure, since Disney ditched a lot of stuff that had previously been canon.
User avatar #123 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
actually the old canon more or less exists as a resource for writers, they can take whatever they want and make it canon. basically it's S-canon.
User avatar #138 - Tyranitar (05/10/2015) [-]
Only everything post-Return of the Jedi is confirmed non-canon. Most, if not all, Maul survival stories took place between the trilogies, so whichever one was canon before should still be so.
User avatar #145 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
As far as I know the clone wars show one is fully canon, anything other than that isn't. That's fascinating though, I thought everything was a resource?
User avatar #171 - Tyranitar (05/10/2015) [-]
Well, I know for a fact Clone Wars is still canon, because Star Wars Rebels, which is considered canon and came after the change, is connected to it.
User avatar #175 - huntergriff (05/10/2015) [-]
i know.
#77 - This is the best one. Seriously though, if you're w… 05/09/2015 on This be a black man, not no... 0
#62 - I'm not trying to say you need to date them. I'm actually not … 05/09/2015 on Nice 0
#33 - Nice people are nice to all waiters, not the just the good ones.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/09/2015 on Nice -1
User avatar #34 - lotengo (05/09/2015) [-]
I worked as as cook, i can confirm al waitresses are awfull people -2./10 would not date


And thats coming from me
you dont know me but i have low standards
User avatar #62 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to say you need to date them. I'm actually not even saying that they are not awful people. All I am saying is that nice people are nice to everybody, not just the people who treat them well.
#323 - I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always e…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/09/2015 on Pretend 0
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#321 - It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the … 05/08/2015 on Pretend 0
#315 - First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off l…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Pretend 0
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#308 - It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actu…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Pretend 0
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#232 - If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. U…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Pretend 0
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#127 - No need to be sarcastic. I think we can have a civil and infor…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/01/2015 on Pretend 0
#137 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
I don't see how removing the minimum wage would require child labor. With no minimum wage, you can actually negotiate your contract with your employer without the government intervening (what SHOULD be a fundamental right).

Let's say you have a family of a mom, a dad, two young adult kids, and a young child. With the current laws, employment is tight, and only the dad can be employed, with a minimum wage job, while the mom takes care of the kids. So the total income of the family is $7 an hour.

With no minimum wage, there's more employment opportunities. The dad's employer is grateful for his years of hard work, so he gives him a promotion, and now he makes $10 an hour. The oldest son is able to take over where his father was. Because he didn't do the same work his father did due to inexperience, he only makes $5/hour. The second-youngest son is even more inexperienced, and somewhat incompetent, so he only makes $3/hour. The mom still has a young kid to take care of, and she can't work a full-time job, but because of the lower wages, she can take up a part-time job a few hours a week for $2.50/hour. So now, even though many people make less than $7/hour, the family now makes $20.50/hour. And the young child certainly doesn't have to work.

That's just one example. Obviously some people might be hurt by it, like single-member households living on minimum wage. But if they've been good workers, then probably they'd be given a decent wage for their work, and possibly a promotion. If the boss is just an asshole, or if the person just isn't suited for the job, the boost in employment would allow them to find better pay or more suitable employment. Furthermore, the money employers will save will allow them to give their employees better hours, better benefits, and a better work environment. Also, it will give them less of an incentive to replace human jobs with machines.
User avatar #232 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Indeed, there are corporations out there who would treat their employees well and show gratitude for their employees' hard work like you have described. However, there are also a lot of corporations which only care about their bottom line, and that often comes at the expense of employee well-being.

I could certainly see the hypothetical family you came up with existing in a world without minimum wage, but I could just as easily see the family looking something like this:

Dad is an unskilled laborer. He was never able to get very far in school (because he had to spend his childhood working to help support his lower-class family instead of studying), so he doesn't have many marketable skills. Dad works at a factory making $3.00 an hour and receives no benefits (because there are no unions to demand that employees get benefits). Dad has recently been experiencing respiratory issues due to the harsh chemicals he is subjected to every day at work (there are no unions to demand safe working conditions for employees). Unfortunately, the family cannot afford to go to the hospital because they have no insurance. Because of this, both the oldest and the middle sons have quit their schooling to take jobs at the factory. The two sons are young, and don't have children of their own to support. They are angry at their poor, unfortunate lot in life, and are planning to join a violent group of revolutionaries who want to overthrow the government that refuses to support common workers.

Now that was obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless, I see it as being completely feasible in a world without unions and minimum wage. The importance of minimum wage comes from the stability it brings lower-class workers. Also, I disagree with your notion that salary negotiation is a fundamental right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is salary negotiation mentioned. Nonetheless, the minimum wage does not prevent people from negotiating their salaries, it only sets the lowest number of dollars they can receive. Finally, because minimum wage and employee unions go hand-in-hand, I think it's worth mentioning that in many cases, unions have been the only thing that prevented employees from being replaced by machines.
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#118 - Having low/no minimum wage is how you get sweat shops like Chi…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/01/2015 on Pretend 0
#121 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
Wait, so if China just waged their minimum wage, everyone would be richer? You genius, you figured out how to hack the economy! Just raise wages and somehow everything just works out!

Why do you think these people WILLINGLY work at these sweatshops? They're not rounded up and enslaved. They do it because it's a better living than whatever alternative they might have.

When people work at industrial jobs:
>women get more independence
>child labor reduces (yes, there is some child labor at these factories, but there's more in agricultural economies. As families get richer, they can pull their kids out of work. Look at child labor statistics over time in Vietnam).
>more goods are available
And so many more benefits.
What China and Southeast Asia are going through is the exact same transition we went through in the 1800s. But we're prosperous as fuck now, and have excellent quality of labor. And not because of government or unions, like liberals would have you believe. Because we got RICHER, which allows us more leisure. All these countries know this, and they willingly go through this transition. Why deny them the wealth that we have?
User avatar #127 - Deeticky (05/01/2015) [-]
No need to be sarcastic. I think we can have a civil and informative discussion without engaging in ad-hominem attacks.

You're right, China is still going through it's industrialization. That is, indeed, one of the reasons that wages are so low there. However, the United States is no longer going through it's industrialization. We are post-industrial. If you look at every post-industrial country around the world, you will see that labor laws and unions are part of the standard post-industrial economy. The reasons for that is that there is now enough money to provide a decent quality of life for each working person instead of having an extremely large rich-poor gap like we had in the 1800s and like China has now.

That's the argument I was trying to make with my China example. By completely removing the minimum wage, you would be necessitating things such as child labor because there would be no other way for low-income families to make enough money to survive. You would, in effect, be reversing the progress that we have made as a post-industrial country.
#137 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
I don't see how removing the minimum wage would require child labor. With no minimum wage, you can actually negotiate your contract with your employer without the government intervening (what SHOULD be a fundamental right).

Let's say you have a family of a mom, a dad, two young adult kids, and a young child. With the current laws, employment is tight, and only the dad can be employed, with a minimum wage job, while the mom takes care of the kids. So the total income of the family is $7 an hour.

With no minimum wage, there's more employment opportunities. The dad's employer is grateful for his years of hard work, so he gives him a promotion, and now he makes $10 an hour. The oldest son is able to take over where his father was. Because he didn't do the same work his father did due to inexperience, he only makes $5/hour. The second-youngest son is even more inexperienced, and somewhat incompetent, so he only makes $3/hour. The mom still has a young kid to take care of, and she can't work a full-time job, but because of the lower wages, she can take up a part-time job a few hours a week for $2.50/hour. So now, even though many people make less than $7/hour, the family now makes $20.50/hour. And the young child certainly doesn't have to work.

That's just one example. Obviously some people might be hurt by it, like single-member households living on minimum wage. But if they've been good workers, then probably they'd be given a decent wage for their work, and possibly a promotion. If the boss is just an asshole, or if the person just isn't suited for the job, the boost in employment would allow them to find better pay or more suitable employment. Furthermore, the money employers will save will allow them to give their employees better hours, better benefits, and a better work environment. Also, it will give them less of an incentive to replace human jobs with machines.
User avatar #232 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Indeed, there are corporations out there who would treat their employees well and show gratitude for their employees' hard work like you have described. However, there are also a lot of corporations which only care about their bottom line, and that often comes at the expense of employee well-being.

I could certainly see the hypothetical family you came up with existing in a world without minimum wage, but I could just as easily see the family looking something like this:

Dad is an unskilled laborer. He was never able to get very far in school (because he had to spend his childhood working to help support his lower-class family instead of studying), so he doesn't have many marketable skills. Dad works at a factory making $3.00 an hour and receives no benefits (because there are no unions to demand that employees get benefits). Dad has recently been experiencing respiratory issues due to the harsh chemicals he is subjected to every day at work (there are no unions to demand safe working conditions for employees). Unfortunately, the family cannot afford to go to the hospital because they have no insurance. Because of this, both the oldest and the middle sons have quit their schooling to take jobs at the factory. The two sons are young, and don't have children of their own to support. They are angry at their poor, unfortunate lot in life, and are planning to join a violent group of revolutionaries who want to overthrow the government that refuses to support common workers.

Now that was obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless, I see it as being completely feasible in a world without unions and minimum wage. The importance of minimum wage comes from the stability it brings lower-class workers. Also, I disagree with your notion that salary negotiation is a fundamental right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is salary negotiation mentioned. Nonetheless, the minimum wage does not prevent people from negotiating their salaries, it only sets the lowest number of dollars they can receive. Finally, because minimum wage and employee unions go hand-in-hand, I think it's worth mentioning that in many cases, unions have been the only thing that prevented employees from being replaced by machines.
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#143 - I tried looking up the "don't chase edict" you menti…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/01/2015 on Muh social justice 0
User avatar #147 - pappanoodles (05/01/2015) [-]
no it's true , in my country the netherlands they say : je hoeft niet mee te werken aan je eigen arrestatie

or in english you don't have to cooperate with your own arrest. this means you are allowed to run away when not yet caught , if caught and you run after then it's resisting arrest
#119 - Try watching The Real Housewives and then tell me that white c…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/30/2015 on Institutionalized Racism +3
#208 - gangbangtime (04/30/2015) [-]
Every culture is stupid.
Ours is just the less stupid between the two.
#117 - I agree. It's nice to see someone else who understands that th… 04/30/2015 on Institutionalized Racism +7
#160 - I'm so sorry your friend had that awful experience. The way sh… 04/25/2015 on SJW Rage Comp +1
#178 - Where are you from? Maybe 420 i just a U.S.A. thing?…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/19/2015 on Popular Opinion Puffin... -1
User avatar #201 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Ok thanks,I understand now,I live in France so yeah does not make any sense here
#168 - Hmm.. Interesting. Most of the stoners that I've met are total…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/19/2015 on Popular Opinion Puffin... -1
User avatar #171 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Oh I met a bunch of faggot that talk about weed like a 12 years old girl speak about her favorite band,but we just don't have the "420".
What is this "420" like what does it mean,where does that came from ?
User avatar #178 - Deeticky (04/19/2015) [-]
Where are you from?

Maybe 420 i just a U.S.A. thing? 420 nowadyas stands for April 20th (4/20). I know that the name wouldn't make as much sense in other countries where the date is given in the day-month style (i.e. 20th April). But yeah, 420 as a term for pot smoking actually came form California. You can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_%28cannabis_culture%29
User avatar #201 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Ok thanks,I understand now,I live in France so yeah does not make any sense here
#175 - guu (04/19/2015) [-]
Something to do with the date.
Maybe try googling it?
Either way, weed isn't a culture, never will be.
Its just a bunch of stupid fucktwits.

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)