Re min wage: I asked before as I don't know, can you cite a first world country with no mimim wage and show the relative improvements in wages and standards that country has and you say would come if we did likewise? I haven't found such data yet but there may be some I am not disagreeing, I'd just like some evidence. If it is there, fine.
All countries currently have some kind of minimum wage laws (except Singapore?...someone correct me if I'm wrong). There is plenty of evidence which groups are harmed by minimum wage requirements.
The minimum wage has been a part of American life for so long now that very few citizens have any memory of a time when it did not exist. But the United States was built by workers who were guaranteed no minimum wage -- in a country that, until the 1938 law, let the marketplace determine how much anyone was paid.
With regard to your specific question {"Are there first world countries you know of that have tried this and it worked?")... this article addresses multiple aspects of the harm caused by the Minimum Wage:
In fact, as wages increase automation becomes more affordable and will be implemented quicker. In the very near future, even high-skill professions will be subject to forms of automation and replacement with artificial intelligence and advanced, inexpensive robotics.
The author there draws a parallel between unpaid internships and minimum wage, yet he doesn't even mention the stipulations under which unpaid internships are legal. You could at least refer to articles written by objective authors.
Rising tide floats all boats. SF is Apple's home town. If the donation helps improve the quality of life in SF then that helps improve Apple's public image which is good for business.
This in a nut shell is the problem "if" it improves things all is good. The vast majority of charitable giving does not do all that much good.
Nobody would complain if Apple donated to a liberal arts organization or some academic cause.
Because education is one of the most important things that a company like Apple can be involved in. If Apple as a company wants to improve the Bay Area living conditions, education should be high on the list.
Some people just don't want to see them spend any money on poor people.
No, it is more a question of wasting money on people that you will never get results from.
If you have been to SF you know there are a lot of homeless on the streets. If there were fewer, the city would be better in my opinion.
I have to agree with you, but you would be a fool to believe that this will impact that situation one bit. Unless the laws are changed to allow incarceration of the mentally ill not much can be accomplished with the homeless.
This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.
If it wasn't for the investment community Apple wouldn't even exist.
It's always the finance people that are like this and the same people don't grasp some of Apple's more thoughtful ad campaigns. This is the kind of attitude that works well in the stock market: take out the morality and trade in a way to maximize profit. Interesting how he likened buying stock in already successful companies to charity as though the company needs the investor.
This is a core point in discussions like these and it starts with an observation. People are born with an instinct to survive and a need to find resources to sustain life. That's a biological trait that we can't get away from. Where people differ is in promoting or discouraging self-interest. People's bodies naturally decay and get dirty but we promote the opposite. People who decide to steal things are acting in their own self-interest but we don't promote that either.
We try to promote what has a positive outcome. There are occasions where you might say acting in a selfless manner is a bad idea. Take this story:
That guy intervened to help someone out and ended up being killed. If he hadn't bothered intervening, he would most likely still be alive. Some would read that story and think what he did was heroic, some might say it was a bad idea because he's dead now.
I don't consider that human life has an overarching purpose any more than the life of a fruit fly, the only motive would therefore be to survive and enjoy it. Behaving in a self-interested way helps achieve this. Few people would prefer that others have a better job, a more attractive partner, more possessions than they do but that's not what altruism is. It's simply caring that other people have a minimum quality of life that aligns with your own expectations. Other people have done this for you. People have died to protect the freedoms and rights that you have now.
It becomes an issue of semantics at times because promoting what's good for the self can also be good for a group. I think what's important is that people should consider whether their actions are only good for themselves at the expense or disregard of others under the knowledge that people do the same for them. If you were broke, wounded and dying in a gutter somewhere, your promotion of self-interest should encourage everyone to leave you alone to die in pain because they don't benefit from helping you. Yet you would be eager for someone to help you and grateful if someone did. That's why someone once said "the true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good".
People might immediately disagree with the statement as the first thought is to place yourself in a position of being judged and some would rather be measured in different ways but if you read the statement with you as the one who can do no good for the subject then you can see the truth in it. There's a truth to the success of both selfishness and altruism, which is why we can't stick with just one of them and people will argue until the end of time that we should stick with one or the other. People need an incentive to contribute because inherent selfishness leads to laziness and it weighs down on people who do contribute but while it's effective at times, I don't think that suffering needs to be that incentive.
Many people living in poverty have a mental illness or similar condition which makes it difficult for them to get and/or hold a job.
I would say it stretches further than that, Elon Musk couldn't get a job because he lacked the confidence. He then started his own company with his brother and eventually got the opportunity of lots of growth funding:
"“the stores will hire a combined 600 associates after combing through the more than 23,000 applications it received from potential employees.” That’s stunning. Walmart received 38 applications for every opening, making the odds of an applicant getting a job at Walmart far greater than getting into Harvard. And all this competition for positions that we know do not pay all that well."
You, sir (and I use that term with not a small touch of irony), are a complete idiot.
Just what did he say wrong. Have you had contact with any of these people? The fact is there is nothing you can do to improve the lives of many of these people. Mental illness is a tough problem to deal with and currently the only way to achieve forced treatment is for that individual to demonstrate a danger to society.
As I've said in other threads like this, at least it allows me to add to my ignore list and stop having to listen to sleaze.
Fine - put your head in the sand and deny the truth. Part of that truth is that a great deal of charitable giving goes to waste.
Wrong. The shareholders only own shares. The only time the shareholder has any ownership in the company is if the company goes bankrupt and liquidates all assets. At that time any funds remaining, after all debts are satisfied, would be distributed to the shareholders, which in most cases will be zero.
The author there draws a parallel between unpaid internships and minimum wage, yet he doesn't even mention the stipulations under which unpaid internships are legal. You could at least refer to articles written by objective authors.
Any sources cited are bound to be criticized as partisan or biased, so feel free to find your own.
Because education is one of the most important things that a company like Apple can be involved in. If Apple as a company wants to improve the Bay Area living conditions, education should be high on the list.
I would actually agree with you there. If kids growing up in the Bay area want to continue to live there, that offers them an increased chance of being able to do so comfortably. By comfortably I mean that their level of income offers enough resilience that they are not living paycheck to paycheck after covering basic expenses (food, shelter, phone, etc. and yes including phone you have to be reachable to hold down a job right?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.
Not one person has been able to accurately state how such a thing would work. I've tried to correct the notion before that buying back shares does not mean Apple then owns a portion of itself. Would you care to explain how you see this happening?
Not mentally retarded but relatively challenged. They are not going to start their own business or put together a cash flow forecast for a bank to get a loan on one. Nor am I suggesting they get hand outs. I am simply pointing out the mantra that anyone can start a business and succeed if they work hard in the USA is BS if they are not too bright.
And not just IQ (which is a controversial measure of intelligence anyways) -- factor in people with disorders like schizophrenia, bi-polar, autism, dementia, etc.
Or did you just not even bother and tell yourself what you always tell yourself, "Giving 'handouts' to the poor is bad -- they'll spend it on drugs and they won't work and the'll be lazy," as usual?
Never even remotely said anything like that, I just pointed out that most charitable giving ends up wasted.
However it has been demonstrated clearly that giving stuff, money or whatever, to the poor keeps them poor.
I don't give a damn about his "quotes."
And your argument makes absolutely no sense. Taylor Swift* has a LOT (like orders of magnitude LOT) more money than I do (or than the economic group into which I would fit do). That doesn't make me poor -- nor does it make me "poor."
Being poor is a state of mind. Charity does not enhance the state of mind of the poor.
If we start counting people as poor -- or as "poor" -- whenever they are part of an economic strata which is below some other group(s) in net worth, then we're going to have to start to counting a lot of multimillionaires as poor -- or as "poor."
* -- Swift's net worth is about $200M, to put what I was saying into perspective.
No. You try to pay attention. I stated specifically with regard to homeless street people and he replied with there will always be poor people. If we were not discussing the same type of people why would he even quote me? Homeless street people have no home, on Internet, no cell phone, no computer as you try to infer that people with these goods and possessions still allow them to be considered "poor people". Sure there are varying degrees of poverty but in this case he and I were not discussing moderately disadvantaged people.
Your definition is fine but please do explain to us how charity will help these people. Certainly handing out freebies won't fix the problem.
Any sources cited are bound to be criticized as partisan or biased, so feel free to find your own.
I don't care if they're partisan. The author used blatant fallacies to support his conclusions. I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's an extremely disingenuous author who is fully aware of his actions.
Did you even read the Tipping Point site? Or do you simply believe that any money used to fight poverty is a freebie?
That site is a dead clear illustration to me that Californian social spending and anti-business legislation is a complete failure. The costs of doing business under misguided attempts to help "the poor" has created more of them! I also noticed that 254 businesses left California in 2011 (no idea how many this year or the previous year).
It's always the finance people that are like this and the same people don't grasp some of Apple's more thoughtful ad campaigns. This is the kind of attitude that works well in the stock market: take out the morality and trade in a way to maximize profit. Interesting how he likened buying stock in already successful companies to charity as though the company needs the investor.
This is a core point in discussions like these and it starts with an observation. People are born with an instinct to survive and a need to find resources to sustain life. That's a biological trait that we can't get away from. Where people differ is in promoting or discouraging self-interest. People's bodies naturally decay and get dirty but we promote the opposite. People who decide to steal things are acting in their own self-interest but we don't promote that either.
We try to promote what has a positive outcome. There are occasions where you might say acting in a selfless manner is a bad idea. Take this story:
That guy intervened to help someone out and ended up being killed. If he hadn't bothered intervening, he would most likely still be alive. Some would read that story and think what he did was heroic, some might say it was a bad idea because he's dead now.
I don't consider that human life has an overarching purpose any more than the life of a fruit fly, the only motive would therefore be to survive and enjoy it. Behaving in a self-interested way helps achieve this. Few people would prefer that others have a better job, a more attractive partner, more possessions than they do but that's not what altruism is. It's simply caring that other people have a minimum quality of life that aligns with your own expectations. Other people have done this for you. People have died to protect the freedoms and rights that you have now.
It becomes an issue of semantics at times because promoting what's good for the self can also be good for a group. I think what's important is that people should consider whether their actions are only good for themselves at the expense or disregard of others under the knowledge that people do the same for them. If you were broke, wounded and dying in a gutter somewhere, your promotion of self-interest should encourage everyone to leave you alone to die in pain because they don't benefit from helping you. Yet you would be eager for someone to help you and grateful if someone did. That's why someone once said "the true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good".
People might immediately disagree with the statement as the first thought is to place yourself in a position of being judged and some would rather be measured in different ways but if you read the statement with you as the one who can do no good for the subject then you can see the truth in it. There's a truth to the success of both selfishness and altruism, which is why we can't stick with just one of them and people will argue until the end of time that we should stick with one or the other. People need an incentive to contribute because inherent selfishness leads to laziness and it weighs down on people who do contribute but while it's effective at times, I don't think that suffering needs to be that incentive.
I would say it stretches further than that, Elon Musk couldn't get a job because he lacked the confidence. He then started his own company with his brother and eventually got the opportunity of lots of growth funding:
"“the stores will hire a combined 600 associates after combing through the more than 23,000 applications it received from potential employees.” That’s stunning. Walmart received 38 applications for every opening, making the odds of an applicant getting a job at Walmart far greater than getting into Harvard. And all this competition for positions that we know do not pay all that well."
I don't care if they're partisan. The author used blatant fallacies to support his conclusions. I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's an extremely disingenuous author who is fully aware of his actions.
Please list the "fallacies" and provide factual "non-partisan" information to rebut the article (BTW, the New York Times is not non-partisan).
Comments
Re min wage: I asked before as I don't know, can you cite a first world country with no mimim wage and show the relative improvements in wages and standards that country has and you say would come if we did likewise? I haven't found such data yet but there may be some I am not disagreeing, I'd just like some evidence. If it is there, fine.
All countries currently have some kind of minimum wage laws (except Singapore?...someone correct me if I'm wrong). There is plenty of evidence which groups are harmed by minimum wage requirements.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2013/05/07/the-minimum-wage-delusion-and-the-death-of-common-sense/
...and there is also recent historical fact.
The minimum wage has been a part of American life for so long now that very few citizens have any memory of a time when it did not exist. But the United States was built by workers who were guaranteed no minimum wage -- in a country that, until the 1938 law, let the marketplace determine how much anyone was paid.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/24/opinion/greene-minimum-wage/
LOL, got any serious studies, you know done by non partisan folks.
Hey let's call it a day. I'm off to celebrate 600 before it dips and I lose my excuse to have a G&T this early!
With regard to your specific question {"Are there first world countries you know of that have tried this and it worked?")... this article addresses multiple aspects of the harm caused by the Minimum Wage:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/02/even-more-thoughts-on-the-minimum-wage.html
In fact, as wages increase automation becomes more affordable and will be implemented quicker. In the very near future, even high-skill professions will be subject to forms of automation and replacement with artificial intelligence and advanced, inexpensive robotics.
The author there draws a parallel between unpaid internships and minimum wage, yet he doesn't even mention the stipulations under which unpaid internships are legal. You could at least refer to articles written by objective authors.
I have to agree with you, but you would be a fool to believe that this will impact that situation one bit. Unless the laws are changed to allow incarceration of the mentally ill not much can be accomplished with the homeless.
It's always the finance people that are like this and the same people don't grasp some of Apple's more thoughtful ad campaigns. This is the kind of attitude that works well in the stock market: take out the morality and trade in a way to maximize profit. Interesting how he likened buying stock in already successful companies to charity as though the company needs the investor.
This is a core point in discussions like these and it starts with an observation. People are born with an instinct to survive and a need to find resources to sustain life. That's a biological trait that we can't get away from. Where people differ is in promoting or discouraging self-interest. People's bodies naturally decay and get dirty but we promote the opposite. People who decide to steal things are acting in their own self-interest but we don't promote that either.
We try to promote what has a positive outcome. There are occasions where you might say acting in a selfless manner is a bad idea. Take this story:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/good-samaritan-stabbed-death-protecting-young-mother-toddler-mugger-article-1.1773850
That guy intervened to help someone out and ended up being killed. If he hadn't bothered intervening, he would most likely still be alive. Some would read that story and think what he did was heroic, some might say it was a bad idea because he's dead now.
I don't consider that human life has an overarching purpose any more than the life of a fruit fly, the only motive would therefore be to survive and enjoy it. Behaving in a self-interested way helps achieve this. Few people would prefer that others have a better job, a more attractive partner, more possessions than they do but that's not what altruism is. It's simply caring that other people have a minimum quality of life that aligns with your own expectations. Other people have done this for you. People have died to protect the freedoms and rights that you have now.
It becomes an issue of semantics at times because promoting what's good for the self can also be good for a group. I think what's important is that people should consider whether their actions are only good for themselves at the expense or disregard of others under the knowledge that people do the same for them. If you were broke, wounded and dying in a gutter somewhere, your promotion of self-interest should encourage everyone to leave you alone to die in pain because they don't benefit from helping you. Yet you would be eager for someone to help you and grateful if someone did. That's why someone once said "the true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good".
People might immediately disagree with the statement as the first thought is to place yourself in a position of being judged and some would rather be measured in different ways but if you read the statement with you as the one who can do no good for the subject then you can see the truth in it. There's a truth to the success of both selfishness and altruism, which is why we can't stick with just one of them and people will argue until the end of time that we should stick with one or the other. People need an incentive to contribute because inherent selfishness leads to laziness and it weighs down on people who do contribute but while it's effective at times, I don't think that suffering needs to be that incentive.
I would say it stretches further than that, Elon Musk couldn't get a job because he lacked the confidence. He then started his own company with his brother and eventually got the opportunity of lots of growth funding:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Zip2+Obtains+$12.1+Million+In+Private+Financing+From+Knight-Ridder...-a019066392
People can have good ideas but no route to market, they can lack confidence and not get hired. Sometimes the odds just don't come out in your favor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267953/Job-seeker-Vicky-Harrison-commits-suicide-rejected-200-jobs.html
When you have so many people and so few opportunities, it becomes more likely that rejections happen:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/19/getting-a-job-at-walmart-is-harder-than-getting-into-harvard.html
"“the stores will hire a combined 600 associates after combing through the more than 23,000 applications it received from potential employees.” That’s stunning. Walmart received 38 applications for every opening, making the odds of an applicant getting a job at Walmart far greater than getting into Harvard. And all this competition for positions that we know do not pay all that well."
Fine - put your head in the sand and deny the truth. Part of that truth is that a great deal of charitable giving goes to waste.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
The author there draws a parallel between unpaid internships and minimum wage, yet he doesn't even mention the stipulations under which unpaid internships are legal. You could at least refer to articles written by objective authors.
Any sources cited are bound to be criticized as partisan or biased, so feel free to find your own.
Because education is one of the most important things that a company like Apple can be involved in. If Apple as a company wants to improve the Bay Area living conditions, education should be high on the list.
I would actually agree with you there. If kids growing up in the Bay area want to continue to live there, that offers them an increased chance of being able to do so comfortably. By comfortably I mean that their level of income offers enough resilience that they are not living paycheck to paycheck after covering basic expenses (food, shelter, phone, etc. and yes including phone you have to be reachable to hold down a job right?).
Quote:
This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.
Not one person has been able to accurately state how such a thing would work. I've tried to correct the notion before that buying back shares does not mean Apple then owns a portion of itself. Would you care to explain how you see this happening?
Not mentally retarded but relatively challenged. They are not going to start their own business or put together a cash flow forecast for a bank to get a loan on one. Nor am I suggesting they get hand outs. I am simply pointing out the mantra that anyone can start a business and succeed if they work hard in the USA is BS if they are not too bright.
And not just IQ (which is a controversial measure of intelligence anyways) -- factor in people with disorders like schizophrenia, bi-polar, autism, dementia, etc.
However it has been demonstrated clearly that giving stuff, money or whatever, to the poor keeps them poor. Being poor is a state of mind. Charity does not enhance the state of mind of the poor.
LOL, got any serious studies, you know done by non partisan folks.
Hey let's call it a day. I'm off to celebrate 600 before it dips and I lose my excuse to have a G&T this early!
Two things: (1) I know of no sources that lack a personal perspective, so I'd argue there are no such sources. (2) Cheers!
Your definition is fine but please do explain to us how charity will help these people. Certainly handing out freebies won't fix the problem.
Any sources cited are bound to be criticized as partisan or biased, so feel free to find your own.
I don't care if they're partisan. The author used blatant fallacies to support his conclusions. I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's an extremely disingenuous author who is fully aware of his actions.
Your definition is fine but please do explain to us how charity will help these people. Certainly handing out freebies won't fix the problem.
Did you even read the Tipping Point site? Or do you simply believe that any money used to fight poverty is a freebie?
Did you even read the Tipping Point site? Or do you simply believe that any money used to fight poverty is a freebie?
That site is a dead clear illustration to me that Californian social spending and anti-business legislation is a complete failure. The costs of doing business under misguided attempts to help "the poor" has created more of them! I also noticed that 254 businesses left California in 2011 (no idea how many this year or the previous year).
Also interesting to note that Americans are now renouncing their citizenship in record numbers: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/1001-americans-renounced-us-citizenship-first-quarter-year
Another excellent post.
I don't care if they're partisan. The author used blatant fallacies to support his conclusions. I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's an extremely disingenuous author who is fully aware of his actions.
Please list the "fallacies" and provide factual "non-partisan" information to rebut the article (BTW, the New York Times is not non-partisan).