next »

[PompiPompi]

how is someone who is paid almost nothing going to support himself
why would all companies not pay almost nothing given the choice? it is COMPETITIVE that way


answer a fucking question for once you mingering little horsewanker

Well, I agree that there should be a liveable minimum wage. Eventhough it sounded like I don't want. Maybe I got too much into the argument.
But there is a big difference between having a minimum wage, and canceling capitalism all together in favour of some sort of socialist utopia.
The reason companies would give a higher wage is because if they didn't, people wouldn't bother to work for them. It's that simple.
At least when there is a shortage of skilled workers. If you don't have any special skills, it's true that companies would exploit you.

[Blademasterbobo]

pompipompi, you are pretty dumb


this is my contribution to this "debate"







i think this thread needs more paul eres

[PompiPompi]

pompipompi, you are pretty dumb


this is my contribution to this "debate"







i think this thread needs more paul eres

You are also dumb. :D

[PompiPompi]

Well, what if the minimum wage was enough, but people would still go into debt\starve because they didn't plan their budget right eventhough they had enough money.
Are you going to have another layer of saftey net for them?

hahahahahahahahahahahah

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

earning below the poverty level is enough you just have to budget it right!!!!!!!

What I ment is, assuming people earn enough to not be in povery, it's not unheard of that people overspend their budget. What if people get into debt because of overspending, do the govrnment save them as well?

[PaleFox]

The reason companies would give a higher wage is because if they didn't, people wouldn't bother to work for them. It's that simple.

then they would die

ITS THAT SIMPLE




do you just not know how living works? or money, or eating, or physical needs


also, you stupid bastard, the tendency is to eliminate skilled labor specifically SO that laborers don't need to be trained and thus can be hired as cheaply as possible

do you know what an assembly line is or are you just retarded

[PompiPompi]

The reason companies would give a higher wage is because if they didn't, people wouldn't bother to work for them. It's that simple.

then they would die

ITS THAT SIMPLE




do you just not know how living works? or money, or eating, or physical needs


also, you stupid bastard, the tendency is to eliminate skilled labor specifically SO that laborers don't need to be trained and thus can be hired as cheaply as possible

do you know what an assembly line is or are you just retarded

No they won't die. They would just pick a job with less requirements, but with the same pay.
Why would I spend years of my life studying(whether formal or not), if I can just work part time selling vegetables and still make the same as a senior programmer?

[The Monster King]

Why would I spend years of my life studying(whether formal or not), if I can just work part time selling vegetables and still make the same as a senior programmer?

because you love programming and are very good at it but the exact opposite applies for selling vegetables. besides you can't tell a gourd from an eggplant. you really suck at vegetables, in fact you retch at the mere sight of a rutabaga.

Well, that's the point. They want to work, but they don't want to WORK HARD.
If I can get the same by working and working hard, wouldn't I choose just to work instead of working hard?
There is no reason to excel, even if I try to constantly improve my skills, I iwll still get the same as the guy who just spent his time with his family and at the beach instead.

no, thats exactly the opposite of the point:

the point spelled for your egyptian toga-wearing person is that people dont work necessarily harder if there's more money down the line, its a different set of things that encourages workers to work hard, basically feeling like they actually matter and not just that they're a replaceable part of a machine that turns a little money into more money

also why do you say "spending time with his family down the beach" like its a bad thing

the point in general is that if you love money more than people you are sick


here is the proof id rather be paid in people than money because people are DELICIOUS

[PompiPompi]

Why would I spend years of my life studying(whether formal or not), if I can just work part time selling vegetables and still make the same as a senior programmer?

because you love programming and are very good at it but the exact opposite applies for selling vegetables. besides you can't tell a gourd from an eggplant. you really suck at vegetables, in fact you retch at the mere sight of a rutabaga.

Well, that's the point. They want to work, but they don't want to WORK HARD.
If I can get the same by working and working hard, wouldn't I choose just to work instead of working hard?
There is no reason to excel, even if I try to constantly improve my skills, I iwll still get the same as the guy who just spent his time with his family and at the beach instead.

no, thats exactly the opposite of the point:

the point spelled for your egyptian toga-wearing person is that people dont work necessarily harder if there's more money down the line, its a different set of things that encourages workers to work hard, basically feeling like they actually matter and not just that they're a replaceable part of a machine that turns a little money into more money

also why do you say "spending time with his family down the beach" like its a bad thing

the point in general is that if you love money more than people you are sick


here is the proof id rather be paid in people than money because people are DELICIOUS

I love programming, but I don't need to work for a company to program. Personally I would prefer selling vegetables(I will have to learn how to do that) part time, and in my free time I would program at my lesuire. Rather than working hard for a company as a programmer.
When you work for a company, you spend a lot of time doing just that, and you need to be productive and efficient. It's not necesseraly as fun as working at your leisure.
Usually what convince people to work hard for a company, and not pick an easier job is compensation.
Personally I would rather to not work for any company and just do what I want, and still get money. I would still work, but on my own things and at my own lesuire.

[The Monster King]

it was as a hypothetical "you". if you want to sell veggies have fun

you contradict yourself in so many ways though agegageegagaga

also you dont need to quote my whole post especially if responding to the previous post

[PompiPompi]

Well, yea, I talked both about myself and others.
Others would work hard for a company mainly because of compensation. A lot of programmers don't even like programming that much, they just work for the money.
If there are two choices: One easy part time job, that doesn't have any education requirements, and one full time job as a senior programmer that requires a lot of education and requires to work hard under stress but both with the same pay. Guess which job most people will choose? Regardless of what people do in their free time(they can code in their free time if they want to).
(My coworker at MS always complained that he doesn't get to see his baby enough)

[Mikademus]

Pompi, there are so many things off with your reasoning and arguments. First, it appears you subscribe to the Conservapedia definition of 'liberal', which generalises anyone without a right-wing Christian fundamentalist conservative "worldview" into a daemonic fantasy of a Red Khmer militant communist. You do realise that Conservapedia is an object of ridicule and that any time anyone notices that their beliefs coincide with anything in there it should be time for serious self-questioning.

Secondly, please stop use the term 'liberal', at least the way you do. It is an US-centrism, and in most of the rest of the world "liberal" actually means "right-wing free market advocate".

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and most fiscal conservatives/classical liberals is that they seem to live in a fantasy world where there are opportunities and business which offer everything for everybody at competitive rates. If your health insurance is too expensive and doesn't cover you well enough, just go find another provider with better rates and better coverage! Those fantasy insurance providers don't exist. If you're at a job that you got after a year of unemployment and job searching, just quitting and finding a new job isn't so easy. The world is a lot smaller and more limited than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would like to believe.

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?

Look to f.i. Scandinavia. Norway, Sweden and Finland has similar or larger GDP per capita as the USA and very equal wealth distribution where virtually no-one is poor, the average is actually quite wealthy (unless you mean "millions" with "wealthy"). In fact, by 2010 numbers the average wealth per adult was greater in Sweden than in USA ($244K vs 242K). Thus "capitalism" (in the US sense you seem to believe is the sole definition of the term) does not mean better average wealth than non-US market models. Some more regulated markets in fact brings both higher average GDP, higher minimum wage and social security with a more balanced fiscal budget than that of the US. Almost all countries in Europe has a median wealth per capita that is greater than the average GDP per capita while those two measurements in the US are almost identical, which means that more people have become wealthy compared to the average in USA. So the US model of capitalism has actually led to fewer people being wealthy than in many "less capitalistic" economies.

If this doesn't suggest that you should study up on real-world economics and focus less on biased and propagandistic "data" serving to entrench a false world view.

The problem with liberals is that they are trying to "save everybody". ...snip...

While your problem is that you generalise and daemonise based on little knowledge, biased and faulty assumptions and lacking reasoning.

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

Cap's "utopia" exists in many places of the 1st world. See above, and many other places in Europe.

(@pompi) Not that I expect you to respond to this head on with an actual answer.  You've not done so at all when anyone's pointed out the flaws in your thinking.

Dogmatism of any kind (especially political religious zealotry or fundamentalism) doesn't like the real world and seeing actual outcomes. Neither does it like factual argumentation or statistical analysis. No one likes leaving the ivory bastion of ones fantasy because reality is much less appealing than idealistic escapism.

[PompiPompi]

Isn't the EU in a crysis? Also, all those countries you bring as an example are really small compared to the US(population wise). It doesn't scale up that easily.
It is easier to support smaller popluation. So saying individuals are more wealthy, does not mean the country has a better economy. It doesn't mean that if the population increased in those small countries, they would still maintain the same individual wealth they have now.
There also might be other reasons for their wealth which you didn't mention, like natural resources or just they are lucky to have some developed brands that were developed decades ago. And most likely those EU brands and corporates make people in other countries work for them, and under worse conditions than the country's people live at.
So it's not clear that those EU are wealthy because their citizens work hard. Or that the US is worse because of capitlism. It might be possible that the US would have been a lot worse if they adopt the european countries model.

[Manuel Magalhães]

Isn't the EU in a crysis?

In Crysis 1 you're in a island in the pacific. In Crysis 2 you're on the US. So no Europe there, sorry.

Seriously though the countries that are in crisis in EU are: A- countries with corrupt governments or B- countries that got their ass handed to them because of countries with corrupt governments.

[s0]

In Crysis 1 you're in a island in the pacific. In Crysis 2 you're on the US. So no Europe there, sorry.

crytek is a german dev tho. so there IS a european connection there.

the plot thickens.  

[JutsBeaumont]

In Crysis 1 you're in a island in the pacific. In Crysis 2 you're on the US. So no Europe there, sorry.

I giggled madly, just so you know.

also, most of the scandinavian countries are not in the least bit in a crisis. which works out, because those countries are - for every other reason - much better examples to begin with.

[Mikademus]

Isn't the EU in a crysis?

No comment on your inability to spell, which however cute in a game-dev forum does reflect badly on any argument of yours.

The EU is a common market but not a common economy, much less one country. Except for Italy the nations in crisis in Europe are fringe economies relatively new to the EU that had bad economies to start with and only barely managed to fulfil the entry requirements. It was controversial to let them in at the time and it turned out to be a bad choice from a financial perspective though a good choice from a political position. Italy has a tradition of lousy, lazy and corrupted governments that has been a laughing stock of Europe for decades, with a prime example being Mousollini's porn-star granddaughter becoming a member of parliament in the 80's, and it is a miracle it has managed to avoid defaulting for as long as it has. Though an early member economically Italy should be viewed together with Greece and Portugal. The core economies of EU are relatively strong and steady.

Also, all those countries you bring as an example are really small compared to the US(population wise). It doesn't scale up that easily. It is easier to support smaller popluation. So saying individuals are more wealthy, does not mean the country has a better economy. It doesn't mean that if the population increased in those small countries, they would still maintain the same individual wealth they have now.

The US is a federation where states have individual fiscal responsibilities, so is Germany. However, Germany's social-capitialistic system manages this well even with incorporating East Germany, which in 1989 was a 3rd world country, while most US states have a an unbalanced budget with deficits and the state's deficit is greater than the country's GDP. Other of Europe's larger economies also manage balanced budgets while providing social security. So good economic systems do scale to the positive, while bad ones (the US liberal-capitalistic model, using the correct meaning of 'liberal') also scales but into the negative.

There also might be other reasons for their wealth which you didn't mention, like natural resources or just they are lucky to have some developed brands that were developed decades ago. And most likely those EU brands and corporates make people in other countries work for them, and under worse conditions than the country's people live at.

USA is considered one of the more resource-rich places on the planet. It was a reason for the intense conflict over colonisation and dominance. The largest brands on the planet are almost all US.

So it's not clear that those EU are wealthy because their citizens work hard. Or that the US is worse because of capitlism. It might be possible that the US would have been a lot worse if they adopt the european countries model.

Contrafactual reasoning here, bad had the US adopted an "European" model (which type? Scandinavian? German? French? Etc) it would very likely have been better off because of stabler finances, balanced budgets, better wealth distribution, better food and medication control, less environmental destruction, better public education and better popular health.

[Yrgkala]

In fact, by 2010 numbers the average wealth per adult was greater in Sweden than in USA ($244K vs 242K).

What do you mean by "average wealth per adult" exactly; how do you measure that & where do these numbers come from?

East Germany, which in 1989 was a 3rd world country

Warsaw pact was the definitive 2nd world.

[i wanna be the guy]

What do you mean by "average wealth per adult" exactly; how do you measure that & where do these numbers come from?

annual household income


??

[Yrgkala]

What do you mean by "average wealth per adult" exactly; how do you measure that & where do these numbers come from?

annual household income


??

Those are 10 times smaller; also they're not "per adult"

[:^)]

Some people don't know how to argue nice. You all suck as people in my book now.

I'm kind of extremely impressed that pompipompi hasn't spewed any profanities or insults back. Personally I find it very difficult to not get mad when everyone starts slandering me. I kind of miss paul eres too. His calm way of disagreeing with everyone on at least one point would make this a bit more entertaining.

At least The Monster King is here.