Bombula: There are a lot of things you're not allowed to do on your own property.
Says who? Oh, that's right, the government. Unions and corporate lobbyists can scream all they want, but they can't touch my property without the help of the government. We need to get the government out of the way.
Anonymous: Or were you talking about solving the libertarian puzzle of actually buying a straight run of property without having one last holdout figure out what you were up to and wanting a billion dollars for their 10 square feet of land now that you've bought all the rest of it?
You solve that problem by going to as many people as you can between point A and point B, and asking them to allow the infrastruture to run through their property, without telling them if they are the last 10 square feet of land or not. You don't build the infrastructure until you have a set of agreements that guarantee a run from point A to point B. Anyone who demands a sky-high price will probably end up getting nothing.
The lack of competition would still exist without the regulation, because once one participant has built infrastructure, other participants will usually not find their return on building duplicate infrastructure to be worth the very intensive investment it would take.
It's very easy to say that, since government never lets it happen. Who is to say that the mere threat of competition won't cause the first participant to start renting out his infrastructure to competitors? Suddenly the first participant would have a motive to maintain and enhance his infrastructure, because he knows that if he does not, he may have to compete against duplicate infrastructure. Of course, in today's world, there is no threat of competition (thanks government!), so that scenario has no chance of happening.
Also, property owners could always build their own infrastructure on their property. Just as you have the option of building (or buying) your own home, rather than renting an apartment, property owners could choose to build (or buy) their own infrastructure, rather than renting it from a company.
But, that all assumes government will get out of the way.
No, that's not the problem. No one says that ratings and dollars have to be about entertainment. If viewers want to hear both sides of the issue, then that's where the money will be. If you are going to blame someone, blame the viewers.
Really, the fact that Fox News advertises itself as "fair and balanced" shows that viewers want that. Of course, you probably disagree with those viewers on want "fair and balanced" means. Now, I'm not taking either side. I'm just saying that blaming money here is akin to shooting the messanger.
It's clear that Surlyboi's contemporaries (as with much of the m(b)illions of other typical humans) believe that 200k will do far more for the good of mankind if it's traded for a very comfortable automobile into which they can place their tender ass.
The beauty of the free market is that they can only get that 200K by providing a product or service that other people want. Even if they don't spend a dime on charity, they will be forced to do good things in order to achieve a high income (i.e. create jobs, provide services and products that people desire, etc.)
While I won't claim that I'm getting a great return on my investment which is taken from my paycheck...
That's the price you pay for not trusting the free market.
Out of my $200,000 in taxes, only $50k,000 may go to programs I deem useful, but that's $50,000 more than if I'd spent it on another Bentley.
You've already created wealth for others by simply earning that $200,000. But if you would like to do more, you are free to do so. Unless, of course, the government takes your money. Then your control is reduced to the power of a single vote.
Oh, and your free market can't do squat when it comes to efficiency. How do I know? Take a look at what Brittney Spears made last year and then tell me that - based on her talent - that sum was justified, because THAT is the free market in action.
This is where you are going wrong. You think that just because you don't value the music of Britney Spears, any system which rewards her must be 'broken'. In reality, the free market is working perfectly. There is a desire for Britney Spear's music (talent or not), so the free market gives people what they want. Now, I'm sure you'll probably say something like, "That's not what people want, it's just that they don't have any choice." Well, the free market has a 'prove it' feature. If you honestly think someone would be willing to pay for something the free market doesn't provide, then YOU can start your own company. Either your company will succeed or it will fail, and you will either be proven right or proven wrong. Compare this to the government...there is no 'prove it' feature. No matter how good of idea you have, if you can't convince a committee of some sort that it's good, then your idea never gets off the ground.
I would highly recommend that you read the book "The millionaire next door."
Most of the people she helps *want* to be independent. Many have come on poor times because of lost jobs, or poor seasonal work performance.
If you have to go on welfare because you lost your job, you _probably_ either a) failed to live below you means, b) had too many children too early (too early as in your bank account/income wasn't high enough, not too early as in age), or c) were not disciplined enough with your money. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but the exception proves the rule. If you want evidence...that is, hard statistics...read the book I recommended.
I don't say this to insult anyone, because I have made mistakes and I have been without a job as well. But I blame myself for my mistakes, not "the man" or "the system".
I'm not saying we should get rid of welfare as a concept (although I do believe we should get the government out of it). I just reject this notion that most poor people are simply "unfortunate" or "unlucky". Most of the help they need has to come from within.
Without government regulation (or at least government oversight), those in control will destroy potential competitors *before* they become competitors.
Only the government has the power to destroy. You simply mean their potential competitors won't be able to turn a profit. If that is the case, then it is the consumers who have chosen to stick with "those in control".
The fact is, if "those in control" provide consumers with a bad service or bad product, then investors will create the competition, and consumers will decide who is really in control. Of course, "bad service" and "bad product" are subjective terms, and each consumer is free to choose for themselves. That's what is so beautiful about the free market.
I agree that you should use your time wisely in college. However, if you think that working a part-time programming job during college and developing a 3d engine will guarantee you a job after you graduate, think again. Been there, done that.
The reality is that it's an employer's market right now. Simple as that. If you tell a CS major, "Hey, don't worry about the glut in the IT industry right now...as long as you have skills, you'll be fine", you are really doing that person a disservice. The reality is that getting into the industry is extremely tough right now for anyone without full-time experience. Anyone who is mesmerized by the high salaries of programmers will quickly find out that a high starting salary doesn't mean jack shit if you can't get a job.
I would send you a private message, but I'm not sure if you can do that on slashdot? Anyway, here's the answer:
I'm working on a video game. I've been planning this for a long time. I have a 3d engine already written (although a lot of work still needs to be done on it). I'm currently working on the story, which is taking me a while because this is one of those games where story is pretty important, and I want this story to be as good as possible. Once I finish the engine and the game design (the hardest part of that being the story), then I have some investors who are willing to give me the money to hire some artistic talent. Once the art is done, I'll take the finished (or nearly finished) game to publishers. Hopefully they will like it and we will all make lots of money:)
The problem is that during 2002, we were basically in a depression in the IT world. Now we are just in recession. In about 1-3 years, we will be back to ok levels
I pray that you are correct, but isn't that optimistic? Won't outsourcing continue to make programming jobs tougher to find? Personally, I wouldn't recommend CS to people unless they really like school. Get a CE instead, because that's harder to outsource, and they teach you more practical stuff so that you'll be more employable. They teach you a little bit of programming as well, so you'll still have a shot at programming jobs.
As for what you said about starting your own business, I think that's a good idea. I'm trying to start my own business as well. I've been planning it as a backup plan for years now. But I'd still recommend that people pick a more desirable major than CS right now...don't put yourself in my situation, where you have to go straight to the backup plan because you can't land a job.
By the way, back_pages, if you are reading this, thinks for backing up my point earlier in this thread. It scares me that you couldn't get employed EVEN when you had a double major. This is why I always read any slashdot story that concerns jobs...there's always valuable information to be found among the comments.
To anyone still in college, here's my advice: Unless you want to go to grad school, pick a major that you love AND teaches you a lot of practical things AND is hard to outsource. You have your whole life to learn things...use college to guarantee you a good job, so that you can afford to have the free time to study the subjects you want.
Why do you feel your degree sucks? And why don't you have a job?
I don't have a job because my degree sucks, and I feel my degree sucks because I don't have a job:)
But seriously, I've made mistakes. I could have gone to a better school, I could have worked harder on my GPA. However, the stats kind of speak for themselves...you can't really say my inability to land an entry level programming job is all my fault if the other people in my major are struggling as well. Looking back on things, I feel like a CE would have been a better choice, because CS is just too academic.
Anyway, I do have a job...I just wish I had a programming job.
Get a degree in Computer Engineering instead. You'll be able to get almost any job a CS guy can get, plus you'll have a shot at engineering jobs. I recently graduated with a CS major, and it sucks. Of the people who graduated from my school in CS this year, 7 out of 19 looking for jobs actually found them. Of the people who graduated from my school in CE this year, 9 out of 12 looking for jobs found them.
If I could do it over again, I would have gotten a degree in something general (i.e. math or physics), rather then a degree in computer science. I feel like I would have a lot more options if I was a physics major who could program (and I would prove this by showing employers a portfolio of all the programs I would have written in my spare time), rather then a computer science major who only knows programming.
If I could tell a younger version of myself what to do, I'd say "Do what you love in your spare time...but your major doesn't necessarily have to be your love. Just make it something you enjoy AND general enough that you won't be unemployed because of some outsourcing..."
You make it sound like you can depend on my charity, when in reality, you can't depend on charity in general. That's a feature, not a bug. The fact that you can't rely on my (or anyone else's) charity is an incentive to stay out of situations where you have to rely on charity. Of course, I realize that people only have so much control, and some people end up in bad situations simply because of bad luck. However, this is pretty rare (what most would consider "bad luck", I usually consider "poor planning"), and if it's truely just bad luck, people tend to be very generous.
But on a more personal level, I predict that when my children are changing your diapers, you will be very glad that someone other than you took on that "burden".
You're suggesting that since your children might help me somewhere down the road, you are entitled to society's help. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we did not enter into any sort of mutual agreement; rather, your decision to have sex was completely your own, and you never asked my opinion. Yet, when sex produces a burden, you expect me to help you out. This is libertine thinking. You want to be able to do whatever you want, but you refuse to accept the consequences.
Honestly, I think this is all a moot point. Yes, I suppose if, in some alternate reality, everyone said "I don't want to have kids", then we would need some people to carry on the burden of replacing society.
However, that's not reality. There are plenty of people who want kids for reasons that have nothing to do with preserving society. We're not going to run out of those kind of parents any time soon. So, in this reality, everyone who doesn't want to have kids can choose not to have them, and society will go on.
So yes, the burden of children is completely chosen. The only exceptions I can think of are if 1) someone was raped or 2) we're not talking about this reality. I don't think either one of those points is really relevant to this discussion.
It is incentive which recognizes that the market if left to itself will gobble up all the dedicated people who don't have kids and can work weekends and evenings and leave the people who carry the real burden of society (yes parenthood) unemployed.
The "burden" is chosen. If you choose to have sex, then you have chosen to take the risk that you might end up with a burden. Therefore, if your value to the business world does not offset the disadvantage parenthood brings, that is entirely your fault.
Now, am I suggesting we let those who make mistakes simply starve to death? No, we can help them with charity. Charity is a better solution to this problem then mandatory overtime, because 1) it recognizes the fact that society does not "owe" parents anything for a burden they placed on themselves, 2) it encourages people to plan ahead and 3) private charity is better then public charity, because people will watch money they personally give much more closely.
Would it be bad for some reason to employ Venezuelans at a wage that is far above their per capita GDP... in fact, probably almost ten times as much? It would seem that this would be good for everyone involved.
Then that means it's expensive for American companies to drill for oil in Venezuela, and cheap for local Venezuela companies. So the business model changes...instead of drilling for oil, American companies buy it from a local Venezuela business. The typical Venezuela worker is still paid the same. So this plan doesn't really seem to help the typical American or Venezuela worker.
The American worker is told by his governemnt a minimum value that he can offer his labor at
Sure, there is a minimum wage, but I don't think that's really the problem here. I think the "problem" is that the cost of living is higher in America, which is not the fault of any government.
If the American worker can't compete in a certain market, then he has at least three options: 1) If he thinks businesses have it so easy, he can start a business of his own. 2) Change his profession. 3) Go to a third world country and compete.
Of course, he needs a certain amount of money and time...so hopefully he is somewhat prepared for a situation like this. (the same way you put on a seat belt, even though you aren't planning to crash) If not...God have mercy on his soul.
The fallacy of this viewpoint is the assumption that exploitation and coercion are separate.
They are different. One improves the economy and the other does the exact opposite.
There is very little exploitation of human labor in the Third World (or, to use the new politically correct term, "the South) without overt or implicit coercion, not to mention numerous human rights abuses.
In general, bad things happen in countries with bad economies. The best way to fix things is to improve the economy. However, this will never happen if we tell corporations not to exploit workers in third world countries. If corporations have to treat third world workers as first world workers, then they have no incentive to go overseas, and the third world countries will become even worse off.
Instead of fighting exploitation, we should encourage it. What do you call it when multiple people are trying to exploit you? It's called competition. It's a good thing.
You can't just look at this in a company by company basis. Capitalism works of the principle of supply and demand. There will only be a demand for products when there is money to buy them. There will only be money to buy them if people have jobs.
This is a common economic fallacy. People seem to think that if businesses are "too greedy", there won't be any money left for customers to spend. The reality is that money is never (legally) destroyed; it is simply spent in different ways. If one group of customers becomes too poor, businesses merely need to move to a market where demand is high. Money will always be spent, no matter if "people have jobs" or not. The key to a successful economy is not circulation; it is production.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
> Parents are more likely to take sick and
> vacation days when it's not convenient for
> the company? Tough luck.
Why do you consider it moral when the cost of a couple's choice is transferred to a company? The employee chose to have a child, so he or she should accept the positive and negative consequences of that decision.
> At some point, we decided that punishing
> people in the employment arena for decisions
> like whether to get married or have children
> was a bad idea.
Where you are going wrong is when you say that we "punish" people in the employment arena. Society does not punish you for having a child; rather, we refuse to share the burden you have placed on yourself. (at least, we would in a completely free market)
Slashdot Mirror
Bombula: There are a lot of things you're not allowed to do on your own property.
Says who? Oh, that's right, the government. Unions and corporate lobbyists can scream all they want, but they can't touch my property without the help of the government. We need to get the government out of the way.
Anonymous: Or were you talking about solving the libertarian puzzle of actually buying a straight run of property without having one last holdout figure out what you were up to and wanting a billion dollars for their 10 square feet of land now that you've bought all the rest of it?
You solve that problem by going to as many people as you can between point A and point B, and asking them to allow the infrastruture to run through their property, without telling them if they are the last 10 square feet of land or not. You don't build the infrastructure until you have a set of agreements that guarantee a run from point A to point B. Anyone who demands a sky-high price will probably end up getting nothing.
The lack of competition would still exist without the regulation, because once one participant has built infrastructure, other participants will usually not find their return on building duplicate infrastructure to be worth the very intensive investment it would take.
It's very easy to say that, since government never lets it happen. Who is to say that the mere threat of competition won't cause the first participant to start renting out his infrastructure to competitors? Suddenly the first participant would have a motive to maintain and enhance his infrastructure, because he knows that if he does not, he may have to compete against duplicate infrastructure. Of course, in today's world, there is no threat of competition (thanks government!), so that scenario has no chance of happening.
Also, property owners could always build their own infrastructure on their property. Just as you have the option of building (or buying) your own home, rather than renting an apartment, property owners could choose to build (or buy) their own infrastructure, rather than renting it from a company.
But, that all assumes government will get out of the way.
All companies (big or small) make the world a better place in the eyes of the consumers using its products.
That's what he said...he said that was amazing, considering how high taxes are in Britian.
No, that's not the problem. No one says that ratings and dollars have to be about entertainment. If viewers want to hear both sides of the issue, then that's where the money will be. If you are going to blame someone, blame the viewers.
Really, the fact that Fox News advertises itself as "fair and balanced" shows that viewers want that. Of course, you probably disagree with those viewers on want "fair and balanced" means. Now, I'm not taking either side. I'm just saying that blaming money here is akin to shooting the messanger.
It's clear that Surlyboi's contemporaries (as with much of the m(b)illions of other typical humans) believe that 200k will do far more for the good of mankind if it's traded for a very comfortable automobile into which they can place their tender ass.
The beauty of the free market is that they can only get that 200K by providing a product or service that other people want. Even if they don't spend a dime on charity, they will be forced to do good things in order to achieve a high income (i.e. create jobs, provide services and products that people desire, etc.)
While I won't claim that I'm getting a great return on my investment which is taken from my paycheck...
That's the price you pay for not trusting the free market.
Out of my $200,000 in taxes, only $50k,000 may go to programs I deem useful, but that's $50,000 more than if I'd spent it on another Bentley.
You've already created wealth for others by simply earning that $200,000. But if you would like to do more, you are free to do so. Unless, of course, the government takes your money. Then your control is reduced to the power of a single vote.
Oh, and your free market can't do squat when it comes to efficiency. How do I know? Take a look at what Brittney Spears made last year and then tell me that - based on her talent - that sum was justified, because THAT is the free market in action.
This is where you are going wrong. You think that just because you don't value the music of Britney Spears, any system which rewards her must be 'broken'. In reality, the free market is working perfectly. There is a desire for Britney Spear's music (talent or not), so the free market gives people what they want. Now, I'm sure you'll probably say something like, "That's not what people want, it's just that they don't have any choice." Well, the free market has a 'prove it' feature. If you honestly think someone would be willing to pay for something the free market doesn't provide, then YOU can start your own company. Either your company will succeed or it will fail, and you will either be proven right or proven wrong. Compare this to the government...there is no 'prove it' feature. No matter how good of idea you have, if you can't convince a committee of some sort that it's good, then your idea never gets off the ground.
The system is stacked against them.
I would highly recommend that you read the book "The millionaire next door."
Most of the people she helps *want* to be independent. Many have come on poor times because of lost jobs, or poor seasonal work performance.
If you have to go on welfare because you lost your job, you _probably_ either a) failed to live below you means, b) had too many children too early (too early as in your bank account/income wasn't high enough, not too early as in age), or c) were not disciplined enough with your money. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but the exception proves the rule. If you want evidence...that is, hard statistics...read the book I recommended.
I don't say this to insult anyone, because I have made mistakes and I have been without a job as well. But I blame myself for my mistakes, not "the man" or "the system".
I'm not saying we should get rid of welfare as a concept (although I do believe we should get the government out of it). I just reject this notion that most poor people are simply "unfortunate" or "unlucky". Most of the help they need has to come from within.
Without government regulation (or at least government oversight), those in control will destroy potential competitors *before* they become competitors.
Only the government has the power to destroy. You simply mean their potential competitors won't be able to turn a profit. If that is the case, then it is the consumers who have chosen to stick with "those in control".
The fact is, if "those in control" provide consumers with a bad service or bad product, then investors will create the competition, and consumers will decide who is really in control. Of course, "bad service" and "bad product" are subjective terms, and each consumer is free to choose for themselves. That's what is so beautiful about the free market.
I agree that you should use your time wisely in college. However, if you think that working a part-time programming job during college and developing a 3d engine will guarantee you a job after you graduate, think again. Been there, done that.
The reality is that it's an employer's market right now. Simple as that. If you tell a CS major, "Hey, don't worry about the glut in the IT industry right now...as long as you have skills, you'll be fine", you are really doing that person a disservice. The reality is that getting into the industry is extremely tough right now for anyone without full-time experience. Anyone who is mesmerized by the high salaries of programmers will quickly find out that a high starting salary doesn't mean jack shit if you can't get a job.
Here is an article that will help answer your question:
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteven ts/educationhomeschoolingorchildren/towardfree.sht ml
Well said...I say, encourage people to get educated about politics. Once that happens, they will want to vote.
rofl, I know. "How would you like to work for free? Well, if you think you have what it takes, then here are some hoops to jump through."
I would send you a private message, but I'm not sure if you can do that on slashdot? Anyway, here's the answer:
I'm working on a video game. I've been planning this for a long time. I have a 3d engine already written (although a lot of work still needs to be done on it). I'm currently working on the story, which is taking me a while because this is one of those games where story is pretty important, and I want this story to be as good as possible. Once I finish the engine and the game design (the hardest part of that being the story), then I have some investors who are willing to give me the money to hire some artistic talent. Once the art is done, I'll take the finished (or nearly finished) game to publishers. Hopefully they will like it and we will all make lots of money :)
The problem is that during 2002, we were basically in a depression in the IT world. Now we are just in recession. In about 1-3 years, we will be back to ok levels
I pray that you are correct, but isn't that optimistic? Won't outsourcing continue to make programming jobs tougher to find? Personally, I wouldn't recommend CS to people unless they really like school. Get a CE instead, because that's harder to outsource, and they teach you more practical stuff so that you'll be more employable. They teach you a little bit of programming as well, so you'll still have a shot at programming jobs.
As for what you said about starting your own business, I think that's a good idea. I'm trying to start my own business as well. I've been planning it as a backup plan for years now. But I'd still recommend that people pick a more desirable major than CS right now...don't put yourself in my situation, where you have to go straight to the backup plan because you can't land a job.
By the way, back_pages, if you are reading this, thinks for backing up my point earlier in this thread. It scares me that you couldn't get employed EVEN when you had a double major. This is why I always read any slashdot story that concerns jobs...there's always valuable information to be found among the comments.
To anyone still in college, here's my advice: Unless you want to go to grad school, pick a major that you love AND teaches you a lot of practical things AND is hard to outsource. You have your whole life to learn things...use college to guarantee you a good job, so that you can afford to have the free time to study the subjects you want.
Why do you feel your degree sucks? And why don't you have a job?
I don't have a job because my degree sucks, and I feel my degree sucks because I don't have a job :)
But seriously, I've made mistakes. I could have gone to a better school, I could have worked harder on my GPA. However, the stats kind of speak for themselves...you can't really say my inability to land an entry level programming job is all my fault if the other people in my major are struggling as well. Looking back on things, I feel like a CE would have been a better choice, because CS is just too academic.
Anyway, I do have a job...I just wish I had a programming job.
Get a degree in Computer Engineering instead. You'll be able to get almost any job a CS guy can get, plus you'll have a shot at engineering jobs. I recently graduated with a CS major, and it sucks. Of the people who graduated from my school in CS this year, 7 out of 19 looking for jobs actually found them. Of the people who graduated from my school in CE this year, 9 out of 12 looking for jobs found them.
If I could do it over again, I would have gotten a degree in something general (i.e. math or physics), rather then a degree in computer science. I feel like I would have a lot more options if I was a physics major who could program (and I would prove this by showing employers a portfolio of all the programs I would have written in my spare time), rather then a computer science major who only knows programming.
If I could tell a younger version of myself what to do, I'd say "Do what you love in your spare time...but your major doesn't necessarily have to be your love. Just make it something you enjoy AND general enough that you won't be unemployed because of some outsourcing..."
Well said. I wish I had some mod points.
You make it sound like you can depend on my charity, when in reality, you can't depend on charity in general. That's a feature, not a bug. The fact that you can't rely on my (or anyone else's) charity is an incentive to stay out of situations where you have to rely on charity. Of course, I realize that people only have so much control, and some people end up in bad situations simply because of bad luck. However, this is pretty rare (what most would consider "bad luck", I usually consider "poor planning"), and if it's truely just bad luck, people tend to be very generous.
But on a more personal level, I predict that when my children are changing your diapers, you will be very glad that someone other than you took on that "burden".
You're suggesting that since your children might help me somewhere down the road, you are entitled to society's help. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we did not enter into any sort of mutual agreement; rather, your decision to have sex was completely your own, and you never asked my opinion. Yet, when sex produces a burden, you expect me to help you out. This is libertine thinking. You want to be able to do whatever you want, but you refuse to accept the consequences.
Burden is not truly chosen.
Society has to replace itself...
Honestly, I think this is all a moot point. Yes, I suppose if, in some alternate reality, everyone said "I don't want to have kids", then we would need some people to carry on the burden of replacing society.
However, that's not reality. There are plenty of people who want kids for reasons that have nothing to do with preserving society. We're not going to run out of those kind of parents any time soon. So, in this reality, everyone who doesn't want to have kids can choose not to have them, and society will go on.
So yes, the burden of children is completely chosen. The only exceptions I can think of are if 1) someone was raped or 2) we're not talking about this reality. I don't think either one of those points is really relevant to this discussion.
It is incentive which recognizes that the market if left to itself will gobble up all the dedicated people who don't have kids and can work weekends and evenings and leave the people who carry the real burden of society (yes parenthood) unemployed.
The "burden" is chosen. If you choose to have sex, then you have chosen to take the risk that you might end up with a burden. Therefore, if your value to the business world does not offset the disadvantage parenthood brings, that is entirely your fault.
Now, am I suggesting we let those who make mistakes simply starve to death? No, we can help them with charity. Charity is a better solution to this problem then mandatory overtime, because 1) it recognizes the fact that society does not "owe" parents anything for a burden they placed on themselves, 2) it encourages people to plan ahead and 3) private charity is better then public charity, because people will watch money they personally give much more closely.
Would it be bad for some reason to employ Venezuelans at a wage that is far above their per capita GDP... in fact, probably almost ten times as much? It would seem that this would be good for everyone involved.
Then that means it's expensive for American companies to drill for oil in Venezuela, and cheap for local Venezuela companies. So the business model changes...instead of drilling for oil, American companies buy it from a local Venezuela business. The typical Venezuela worker is still paid the same. So this plan doesn't really seem to help the typical American or Venezuela worker.
The American worker is told by his governemnt a minimum value that he can offer his labor at
Sure, there is a minimum wage, but I don't think that's really the problem here. I think the "problem" is that the cost of living is higher in America, which is not the fault of any government.
If the American worker can't compete in a certain market, then he has at least three options: 1) If he thinks businesses have it so easy, he can start a business of his own. 2) Change his profession. 3) Go to a third world country and compete.
Of course, he needs a certain amount of money and time...so hopefully he is somewhat prepared for a situation like this. (the same way you put on a seat belt, even though you aren't planning to crash) If not...God have mercy on his soul.
The fallacy of this viewpoint is the assumption that exploitation and coercion are separate.
They are different. One improves the economy and the other does the exact opposite.
There is very little exploitation of human labor in the Third World (or, to use the new politically correct term, "the South) without overt or implicit coercion, not to mention numerous human rights abuses.
In general, bad things happen in countries with bad economies. The best way to fix things is to improve the economy. However, this will never happen if we tell corporations not to exploit workers in third world countries. If corporations have to treat third world workers as first world workers, then they have no incentive to go overseas, and the third world countries will become even worse off.
Instead of fighting exploitation, we should encourage it. What do you call it when multiple people are trying to exploit you? It's called competition. It's a good thing.
You can't just look at this in a company by company basis. Capitalism works of the principle of supply and demand. There will only be a demand for products when there is money to buy them. There will only be money to buy them if people have jobs.
This is a common economic fallacy. People seem to think that if businesses are "too greedy", there won't be any money left for customers to spend. The reality is that money is never (legally) destroyed; it is simply spent in different ways. If one group of customers becomes too poor, businesses merely need to move to a market where demand is high. Money will always be spent, no matter if "people have jobs" or not. The key to a successful economy is not circulation; it is production.
> Parents are more likely to take sick and > vacation days when it's not convenient for > the company? Tough luck. Why do you consider it moral when the cost of a couple's choice is transferred to a company? The employee chose to have a child, so he or she should accept the positive and negative consequences of that decision. > At some point, we decided that punishing > people in the employment arena for decisions > like whether to get married or have children > was a bad idea. Where you are going wrong is when you say that we "punish" people in the employment arena. Society does not punish you for having a child; rather, we refuse to share the burden you have placed on yourself. (at least, we would in a completely free market)