I got caught cheating a few times on assignments- but in each case, I was the one doing the work... I've used many a code that wasn't my own
So, which is it? Either you were doing the work or you were not. Actually, don't bother answering. You're just a lying cheater either way. You'll say or do whatever you like without regard to truth, honesty, or morality.
I could read through all the code and tell the teacher exactly what was happening in the program.
Reading code and actually creating original code are two VERY different skills. It's like the difference between watching television and actually making a television show. The amount of work put in for each is very different. And, what you get out of the two activities is very different as well.
What makes proving a student has cheated in certain CS classes is that work done often has the same exact code behind it, but it looks differently on the surface (colors, button arrangments, etc.).
Having actually worked on several group projects in school and at various times critiquing other people's code, I can honestly say your statement there is pure BS. There are about 10 different ways to put together any given function, 3-4 of which work well, and about 1 being optimal. Even at a beginner level, most programs are made up of countless functions. And since beginning students don't know crap about optimizing code, professors SHOULD see all the code combinations possible.
If a professor sees the EXACT same code ANYWHERE, then it's VERY likely the students cheated.
Yes, I know every programmer has their own style, but in many beginners classes the code is supposed to look the exact same.
No, the output is supposed to look the same. There is a difference.
And, the farther you progress into your degree program, the more varied your output SHOULD be. Your comment makes me guess that you didn't actually graduate. If that's true, then you got what you deserved: nothing.
First off, Texas is not in the southwest. It is in the south.
Second off, had you actually read even half of the four page article, you'd know it was about the fact that Bush did NOT win. Most people DID vote for Kerry. But through cheating, lying, and manipulation, the Republicans were able to twist the truth to suit their own purposes. They did that for the election and they did it for Iraq.
And, "undocumented immigrant" is not accurate. Many of this group of people have forged documentation in order to get jobs and work. In these cases, these are "documented immigrants", but still illegal. And in fact, these forged documents are against the law. It is considered fraud.
A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
Then you can tell that the bills are faked from the paper or ink used. You could also tell from the manner it was printed and cut. You still would not have an exact copy.
The exact copy of Windows IS genuinely from Microsoft. As an exact copy of the Windows code, Microsoft is the manufacturer. You are stuck on the box, the manual, and the business-reply forms, despite the fact that you get none of these when order your computer from Dell or HP or wherever. The only thing that matters to Microsoft with their "genuine" Windows is whether you have a license or not. And that IS a change in the definition of the word.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
No, both installations of Windows software are genuinely from Microsoft. One installation may be legal or not, but that does not change the fact of who made the software.
As freedumb2000 said, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
The actions of the US Government or Microsoft against counterfeiters doesn't matter to this discussion. The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.
What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.
It is the redefining of a term. A software copy is an EXACT duplicate. The copied code came from Microsoft, just like all those official Windows CDs which Microsoft copied in their manufacturing process. There is no difference between the copied code and the original. The copied code is genuinely from Microsoft.
A counter-example would be a fake Rolex watch. A copied watch is NOT an exact duplicate, because it came from a different manufacturer than Rolex. In that case, the fake Rolex is not genuine.
No, in this case Microsoft wants to attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. If I copy my official Windows CD, my copy is still genuine in their eyes. However, if I then use that copy in a non-licensed manner, then it becomes non-genuine. This is a re-definition of the language around this topic, just like they re-defined the IT definitions of hacker and piracy.
(Hacker: someone who tinkers with technology. Piracy: the act of copying and reselling the copy for profit.)
The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not. That is because the fake currency actually comes from North Korea and not the US Mint. However, the software code of both Windows and that copy of Windows both come from Microsoft. Once installed, no expert would be able to tell the difference between the two copies because each is an exact duplicate.
Having worked at Microsoft, mostly because I desperately needed the money rather than actually wanting to work there, I can honestly say they do have some cool stuff used internally which they SHOULD push out to the general public.
Some of the best are their test automation tools which made it a breeze to do work there. With a push of a single button, I could automagically reinstall Windows on 100 machines simultaneously, have it automatically start different automated tests on each machine, upload the results to a central server, and have those results parsed for any problem that came up in the tests.
Of course, the public will never see tools anywhere near like that. Even if they could make it so that Windows wouldn't be pirated, their management is so dense and top-heavy that they can't manage their way out of a paper bag. Mini-microsoft is right, they should thin out their management.
Doesn't matter. It's completely legal to photograph anyone in public at any time.
If there's an undercover cop hanging out and chatting it up and being friendly with the police, then they've already jeopardized their own cover to anyone who happens to walk by.
Conversely, maybe you shouldn't live somewhere where you can't afford the cost of living. I would love to live on the beach, but I can't afford to live there on the wages I can earn, therefore I don't live on the beach.
I would love to live on the beach as well. As it stands, I live in a relatively cheap suburb of a major US city. $5.15 a hour doesn't cut it here. Neither does the $9 per hour you cited previously. That certainly does not stop companies near here and downtown from charging $5.15 or less, in the case of illegal workers. The companies don't care if they're not paying enough for their workers to actually live.
He is without a job because costs for labor went up, and therefore demand has gone down.
Interesting calculations there, Armchair Economist. Had you actually studied economics, you'd know the empirical evidence concludes that states which have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy.
In the end, minimum wage is not the answer, teaching people to mange their money and their life responsibly is.
Who are you to decide that Paris Hilton doesn't deserve the money her parents have given to her, and that it should be taken from her by force? No one, so far as I can see.
And who are you to decide that Paris Hilton deserves every single penny that she did not earn herself?
I'll answer both questions: I'm a voter in a democracy. If I and enough people like me decide that Paris Hilton is undeserving of receiving all her fortune, then we can push that decision. And in fact we have already made that decision years ago through the inheritance tax. That also has the side benefit of taxing capital gains that would otherwise go untaxed.
Those are the fruits of MY labor, and that's what I choose to do with it. If it bothers you, I couldn't give a shit. It isn't up to you to interfere with that. If you try, I and millions of other parents will stomp all over you for trying.
Oh please... the inheritance tax already exists. And I highly doubt you're a multi-millionaire, so your inheritors are not likely to pay a dime in that tax. The current applicable exclusion amount is $2,000,000.
And here's another illustration to the problem of assigning an arbitrarily low amount for the minimum wage. $9 may be perfectly fine where YOU live, but it's certainly not where I am. Get out of Hicksville and maybe you'd realize that.
It seems the obscenely wealthy get that way through risk taking, smarts, and/or luck. As long as they are not breaking any laws then I don't have a problem with their good fortune. If they are raking in the bucks it's becuase they have something other people want to give them money for.
Hahahahaha!!!... Paris Hilton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn her fortune. It wasn't risk taking. It wasn't smarts. And it wasn't even luck, every child of the Hiltons or any rich family is in the same position. Whatever child they had would be in the exact same position. Luck, risk taking, and smarts had nothing to do with Paris Hilton.
What is the relevance of the wealth gap?
The rich CEOs get paid far, far more than the wealth they generate. That is because they take the majority of the profits their minimum wage employees create in order to give themselves million dollar bonuses. That warps the idea of freedom and democracy when these CEOs then turn around and use these ill-gotten gains to access politicians and legislation to further their wealth accumulation. If they break the law, the rich can buy their freedom and in some cases, like OJ, literally get away with murder. Good luck trying to buy that kind of legal protection on a middle class income.
Is the middle class actually shrinking in the U.S.?
Yes.
Is the standard of living going down for the middle class and the poor?
Yes. Wages have actually gone up less than inflation for the last five years, meaning you earn less real money now than you did in 2001. And in fact, wages actually peaked on an inflation-adjusted scale back in 1968.
Are the health care options for the poor worse than 25, 50, 75 years ago?
The health care options are better due to medical advances, if you are able to afford them. Affordability is the real problem.
You forget we live in a global economy. Just because we raise the minimum wage a few dollars here doesn't mean inflation will skyrocket, especially since we already buy most of our manufactured goods from places like China.
Further, you ignore the empirical evidence to the contrary. The states that have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy. So, it actually makes us more prosperous to have a higher minimum wage.
Me: The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun."
You: Ok, if we do that for 10 years, so that we're no longer the wealthiest nation in the world, can we stop and return to actual freedom and sanity? Should everyone in that nation have all that even if no one works? If so, where would it come from?
Let's see, CEO's get paid, what? 100x-1000x the salary of the average worker? Maybe more?
Somehow, I don't think lowering that variance will immediately make the average worker up and quit their job. Minimum wage wasn't even a livable wage when it was set at $5.15 in 1997. Doubling the minimum to $10.30 gets close, tripling it to $15.45 would actually be more reasonable. And yes, we certainly COULD do that with the salaries these CEOs and other managers make. Instead of making $50, $100, or $500 million, I'm sure they could get by on $5, $10, or $50 million per year plus stock incentives.
Me: The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
You: It seems like more and more people detest freedom, and would rather be taken care of.
Riiight. So, my argument that people should receive a portion of the profits they generate instead of having the CEOs take all that profit for themselves means that I "detest freedom". Nevermind the fact that I would actually be more free were I able to keep a fraction of the profit that I actually create.
The person here who really detests freedom is you: the supporter of corporations modelled after dictatorships.
No, it's a corporation. In a free society, people can form whatever free-will associations that they please. If they register with the state to be taxed, they become a corporation. If you ask to join someone else's corporation, you do so on whatever terms are agreeable to both you and them. And you leave whenever those terms stop being agreeable. That is freedom.
You are free to go to North Korea and start working for the dictatorship there. And, if you wanted to leave North Korea later, you certainly could, as long as you respected the law while you were there. The fact that you are free to enter the corporation of your choice does not somehow mean they are not dictatorships.
If the government tells one or both parties what is or isn't agreeable, then that ceases to be freedom (and, as it happens, also ceases to be prosperous).
Bullshit. The government coming in and telling companies that they have to pay minimum wage actually benefits the worker and the economy in general. The states that have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy. So, it actually makes us more prosperous to have the minimum wage.
As for your freedom argument, that's also complete bullshit. Anyone attempting to live off of minimum wage isn't free. That's poverty level. They are wage slaves for their corporate masters.
But the wonderful thing is, if there is anything useful you can do, you can start your own corporation, and do everything your own way. But that's hard work. It's much easier to freeload off someone else's corporation.
Bullshit again. First off, the founders of those companies did not build those companies by themselves. They hired employees as soon as possible to help build up that corporation. Those employees often take less than market wages just to help out the founder and the business succeed. Do those employees get back everything THEY sacrificed?... Hell no
Not every CEO founded their corporation. Quite a few walked in straight off the street, just like every other hired employee.
Further, not every founder built their corporation with their bare hands BY THEMSELVES. You did have help. But even that fact does not give you the right to bleed your employees dry on minimum wage so you can give yourself a million dollar raise. Their work is worth more than that.
But, somehow I expect that you'll turn around and sputter, "but, but, -I- don't do that!" Yeah, well, THAT is exactly the right you are arguing here.
Me: The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
You: Once you decide that anyone has a right to the product of another person's labor, yes, it's communist.
No, my statements were based on the radical idea that anyone has the right to the profits of their OWN labor.
Slashdot Mirror
Creating an aimbot allows him to legally behave like a sociopath. Cheating, unfortunately, is completely legal. Those other things you listed are not.
Exactly, it's a tie. What they should do in that case is a runoff election. But, Washington law doesn't have that.
I got caught cheating a few times on assignments- but in each case, I was the one doing the work... I've used many a code that wasn't my own
So, which is it? Either you were doing the work or you were not. Actually, don't bother answering. You're just a lying cheater either way. You'll say or do whatever you like without regard to truth, honesty, or morality.
I could read through all the code and tell the teacher exactly what was happening in the program.
Reading code and actually creating original code are two VERY different skills. It's like the difference between watching television and actually making a television show. The amount of work put in for each is very different. And, what you get out of the two activities is very different as well.
What makes proving a student has cheated in certain CS classes is that work done often has the same exact code behind it, but it looks differently on the surface (colors, button arrangments, etc.).
Having actually worked on several group projects in school and at various times critiquing other people's code, I can honestly say your statement there is pure BS. There are about 10 different ways to put together any given function, 3-4 of which work well, and about 1 being optimal. Even at a beginner level, most programs are made up of countless functions. And since beginning students don't know crap about optimizing code, professors SHOULD see all the code combinations possible.
If a professor sees the EXACT same code ANYWHERE, then it's VERY likely the students cheated.
Yes, I know every programmer has their own style, but in many beginners classes the code is supposed to look the exact same.
No, the output is supposed to look the same. There is a difference.
And, the farther you progress into your degree program, the more varied your output SHOULD be. Your comment makes me guess that you didn't actually graduate. If that's true, then you got what you deserved: nothing.
First off, Texas is not in the southwest. It is in the south.
Second off, had you actually read even half of the four page article, you'd know it was about the fact that Bush did NOT win. Most people DID vote for Kerry. But through cheating, lying, and manipulation, the Republicans were able to twist the truth to suit their own purposes. They did that for the election and they did it for Iraq.
Yeah, and Dino Rossi could have continued by contesting the last recount as well. But, he chose not to. His loss.
The Secretary of State for Washington is a Republican. If there were any problems with the election, he certainly would have said something.
The software is genuinely made by Microsoft.
The term "illegal alien" is the term used by the government to refer to this group of foreigners.
And, "undocumented immigrant" is not accurate. Many of this group of people have forged documentation in order to get jobs and work. In these cases, these are "documented immigrants", but still illegal. And in fact, these forged documents are against the law. It is considered fraud.
A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
Then you can tell that the bills are faked from the paper or ink used. You could also tell from the manner it was printed and cut. You still would not have an exact copy.
The exact copy of Windows IS genuinely from Microsoft. As an exact copy of the Windows code, Microsoft is the manufacturer. You are stuck on the box, the manual, and the business-reply forms, despite the fact that you get none of these when order your computer from Dell or HP or wherever. The only thing that matters to Microsoft with their "genuine" Windows is whether you have a license or not. And that IS a change in the definition of the word.
As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
No, both installations of Windows software are genuinely from Microsoft. One installation may be legal or not, but that does not change the fact of who made the software.
As freedumb2000 said, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
Please stay on topic.
The actions of the US Government or Microsoft against counterfeiters doesn't matter to this discussion. The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.
What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.
It is the redefining of a term. A software copy is an EXACT duplicate. The copied code came from Microsoft, just like all those official Windows CDs which Microsoft copied in their manufacturing process. There is no difference between the copied code and the original. The copied code is genuinely from Microsoft.
A counter-example would be a fake Rolex watch. A copied watch is NOT an exact duplicate, because it came from a different manufacturer than Rolex. In that case, the fake Rolex is not genuine.
No, in this case Microsoft wants to attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. If I copy my official Windows CD, my copy is still genuine in their eyes. However, if I then use that copy in a non-licensed manner, then it becomes non-genuine. This is a re-definition of the language around this topic, just like they re-defined the IT definitions of hacker and piracy.
(Hacker: someone who tinkers with technology. Piracy: the act of copying and reselling the copy for profit.)
The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not. That is because the fake currency actually comes from North Korea and not the US Mint. However, the software code of both Windows and that copy of Windows both come from Microsoft. Once installed, no expert would be able to tell the difference between the two copies because each is an exact duplicate.
Having worked at Microsoft, mostly because I desperately needed the money rather than actually wanting to work there, I can honestly say they do have some cool stuff used internally which they SHOULD push out to the general public.
Some of the best are their test automation tools which made it a breeze to do work there. With a push of a single button, I could automagically reinstall Windows on 100 machines simultaneously, have it automatically start different automated tests on each machine, upload the results to a central server, and have those results parsed for any problem that came up in the tests.
Of course, the public will never see tools anywhere near like that. Even if they could make it so that Windows wouldn't be pirated, their management is so dense and top-heavy that they can't manage their way out of a paper bag. Mini-microsoft is right, they should thin out their management.
Doesn't matter. It's completely legal to photograph anyone in public at any time.
If there's an undercover cop hanging out and chatting it up and being friendly with the police, then they've already jeopardized their own cover to anyone who happens to walk by.
Conversely, maybe you shouldn't live somewhere where you can't afford the cost of living. I would love to live on the beach, but I can't afford to live there on the wages I can earn, therefore I don't live on the beach.
I would love to live on the beach as well. As it stands, I live in a relatively cheap suburb of a major US city. $5.15 a hour doesn't cut it here. Neither does the $9 per hour you cited previously. That certainly does not stop companies near here and downtown from charging $5.15 or less, in the case of illegal workers. The companies don't care if they're not paying enough for their workers to actually live.
He is without a job because costs for labor went up, and therefore demand has gone down.
Interesting calculations there, Armchair Economist. Had you actually studied economics, you'd know the empirical evidence concludes that states which have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy.
In the end, minimum wage is not the answer, teaching people to mange their money and their life responsibly is.
People can not "mange" what they do not have.
Who are you to decide that Paris Hilton doesn't deserve the money her parents have given to her, and that it should be taken from her by force? No one, so far as I can see.
And who are you to decide that Paris Hilton deserves every single penny that she did not earn herself?
I'll answer both questions: I'm a voter in a democracy. If I and enough people like me decide that Paris Hilton is undeserving of receiving all her fortune, then we can push that decision. And in fact we have already made that decision years ago through the inheritance tax. That also has the side benefit of taxing capital gains that would otherwise go untaxed.
Those are the fruits of MY labor, and that's what I choose to do with it. If it bothers you, I couldn't give a shit. It isn't up to you to interfere with that. If you try, I and millions of other parents will stomp all over you for trying.
Oh please... the inheritance tax already exists. And I highly doubt you're a multi-millionaire, so your inheritors are not likely to pay a dime in that tax. The current applicable exclusion amount is $2,000,000.
The nice thing about living in a democracy is that the people decide what rights to give corporations and what that minimum wage is.
And here's another illustration to the problem of assigning an arbitrarily low amount for the minimum wage. $9 may be perfectly fine where YOU live, but it's certainly not where I am. Get out of Hicksville and maybe you'd realize that.
It seems the obscenely wealthy get that way through risk taking, smarts, and/or luck. As long as they are not breaking any laws then I don't have a problem with their good fortune. If they are raking in the bucks it's becuase they have something other people want to give them money for.
Hahahahaha!!!... Paris Hilton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn her fortune. It wasn't risk taking. It wasn't smarts. And it wasn't even luck, every child of the Hiltons or any rich family is in the same position. Whatever child they had would be in the exact same position. Luck, risk taking, and smarts had nothing to do with Paris Hilton.
What is the relevance of the wealth gap?
The rich CEOs get paid far, far more than the wealth they generate. That is because they take the majority of the profits their minimum wage employees create in order to give themselves million dollar bonuses. That warps the idea of freedom and democracy when these CEOs then turn around and use these ill-gotten gains to access politicians and legislation to further their wealth accumulation. If they break the law, the rich can buy their freedom and in some cases, like OJ, literally get away with murder. Good luck trying to buy that kind of legal protection on a middle class income.
Is the middle class actually shrinking in the U.S.?
Yes.
Is the standard of living going down for the middle class and the poor?
Yes. Wages have actually gone up less than inflation for the last five years, meaning you earn less real money now than you did in 2001. And in fact, wages actually peaked on an inflation-adjusted scale back in 1968.
Are the health care options for the poor worse than 25, 50, 75 years ago?
The health care options are better due to medical advances, if you are able to afford them. Affordability is the real problem.
You forget we live in a global economy. Just because we raise the minimum wage a few dollars here doesn't mean inflation will skyrocket, especially since we already buy most of our manufactured goods from places like China.
Further, you ignore the empirical evidence to the contrary. The states that have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy. So, it actually makes us more prosperous to have a higher minimum wage.
Me: The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun."
You: Ok, if we do that for 10 years, so that we're no longer the wealthiest nation in the world, can we stop and return to actual freedom and sanity? Should everyone in that nation have all that even if no one works? If so, where would it come from?
Let's see, CEO's get paid, what? 100x-1000x the salary of the average worker? Maybe more?
Somehow, I don't think lowering that variance will immediately make the average worker up and quit their job. Minimum wage wasn't even a livable wage when it was set at $5.15 in 1997. Doubling the minimum to $10.30 gets close, tripling it to $15.45 would actually be more reasonable. And yes, we certainly COULD do that with the salaries these CEOs and other managers make. Instead of making $50, $100, or $500 million, I'm sure they could get by on $5, $10, or $50 million per year plus stock incentives.
Me: The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
You: It seems like more and more people detest freedom, and would rather be taken care of.
Riiight. So, my argument that people should receive a portion of the profits they generate instead of having the CEOs take all that profit for themselves means that I "detest freedom". Nevermind the fact that I would actually be more free were I able to keep a fraction of the profit that I actually create.
The person here who really detests freedom is you: the supporter of corporations modelled after dictatorships.
No, it's a corporation. In a free society, people can form whatever free-will associations that they please. If they register with the state to be taxed, they become a corporation. If you ask to join someone else's corporation, you do so on whatever terms are agreeable to both you and them. And you leave whenever those terms stop being agreeable. That is freedom.
You are free to go to North Korea and start working for the dictatorship there. And, if you wanted to leave North Korea later, you certainly could, as long as you respected the law while you were there. The fact that you are free to enter the corporation of your choice does not somehow mean they are not dictatorships.
If the government tells one or both parties what is or isn't agreeable, then that ceases to be freedom (and, as it happens, also ceases to be prosperous).
Bullshit. The government coming in and telling companies that they have to pay minimum wage actually benefits the worker and the economy in general. The states that have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum wage have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy. So, it actually makes us more prosperous to have the minimum wage.
As for your freedom argument, that's also complete bullshit. Anyone attempting to live off of minimum wage isn't free. That's poverty level. They are wage slaves for their corporate masters.
But the wonderful thing is, if there is anything useful you can do, you can start your own corporation, and do everything your own way. But that's hard work. It's much easier to freeload off someone else's corporation.
Bullshit again. First off, the founders of those companies did not build those companies by themselves. They hired employees as soon as possible to help build up that corporation. Those employees often take less than market wages just to help out the founder and the business succeed. Do those employees get back everything THEY sacrificed?... Hell no
Not every CEO founded their corporation. Quite a few walked in straight off the street, just like every other hired employee.
Further, not every founder built their corporation with their bare hands BY THEMSELVES. You did have help. But even that fact does not give you the right to bleed your employees dry on minimum wage so you can give yourself a million dollar raise. Their work is worth more than that.
But, somehow I expect that you'll turn around and sputter, "but, but, -I- don't do that!" Yeah, well, THAT is exactly the right you are arguing here.
Greedy bastard. Burn in hell.
Me: The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
You: Once you decide that anyone has a right to the product of another person's labor, yes, it's communist.
No, my statements were based on the radical idea that anyone has the right to the profits of their OWN labor.