Jordan Neely: The Left and BLM's Latest Moronic Martyr

[jazzy]

I guess my main question is if working 40hrs of McDonalds doesn't warrant a livable wage and satisfiable levels of retirement, why do we even allow it in society. It sounds like it's objectively bad to do this. I mean wasn't that the same argument as minimum wage in the first place, that we shouldn't let companies take advantage of labor to such a degree that it is negative to their personal and overall society's benefit?

[Wawa]

5 minutes ago, jazzy said:

I guess my main question is if working 40hrs of McDonalds doesn't warrant a livable wage and satisfiable levels of retirement, why do we even allow it in society. It sounds like it's objectively bad to do this. I mean wasn't that the same argument as minimum wage in the first place, that we shouldn't let companies take advantage of labor to such a degree that it is negative to their personal and overall society's benefit?

The US is currently averaging more than one mass shooting per day right now, outrage is minimal, and Jordan Neely's killer is being popularly labeled as a 'good samaritan'.  Meanwhile, Serbia has 2 mass shootings, everyone takes to the streets, and their government tightens gun control as a result.  We allow poverty wages the same way we allow mass shootings to happen, the same way we allow homelessness to happen and the dehumanization of the homeless to happen--we are the most propagandized people on the planet to the point where exploitation and oppression are normalized instead of villainized.

[kabLe]

I just don't understand what the problem is with taking accountability of your life and working towards it's betterment regardless of where you start. People have become successful with no help from all walks of life. People who aren't born here and grew up having less than everyone on this website are more successful than you are right now. How is that not your own fault?

[ThRza]

57 minutes ago, kabLe said:

I just don't understand what the problem is with taking accountability of your life and working towards it's betterment regardless of where you start. People have become successful with no help from all walks of life. People who aren't born here and grew up having less than everyone on this website are more successful than you are right now. How is that not your own fault?

An excerpt from my previous post: 

"People should absolutely do everything in their power to recognize where they've gone wrong and what they can do to improve. I am by no means anti-responsibility, nor am I against the notion that people should, if physically and mentally able, carry their own weight. That said, you overestimate the degree to which people have agency. The cards are stacked against the majority of people from the beginning. This is by design. I will elaborate further once we begin discussing value."

Our goal isn't to make people lazy. In a world that isn't post-scarcity (that being, a world in which necessities are still scarce), people should absolutely still have to contribute to society in order to live. For us, this is not the focus. Our problems lie with the way our current mode of production, capitalism, creates and maintains inequality through various means to the benefit of one class against another. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification, but it's still a better place for you to start than with the idea that we're against personal responsibility and just want to give handouts to the entire population.

I would absolutely love to elaborate further, going into full detail the reasoning for all of my conclusions. It's why I asked those questions at the start of my previous post (which you didn't read !!!). I can assure you that whatever preconceived ideas you have of what we believe are wrong, and I think you'd see that if we opened the door for further discussion beyond surface-level political opinions.

[kabLe]

29 minutes ago, ThRza said:

An excerpt from my previous post: 

"People should absolutely do everything in their power to recognize where they've gone wrong and what they can do to improve. I am by no means anti-responsibility, nor am I against the notion that people should, if physically and mentally able, carry their own weight. That said, you overestimate the degree to which people have agency. The cards are stacked against the majority of people from the beginning. This is by design. I will elaborate further once we begin discussing value."

Our goal isn't to make people lazy. In a world that isn't post-scarcity (that being, a world in which necessities are still scarce), people should absolutely still have to contribute to society in order to live. For us, this is not the focus. Our problems lie with the way our current mode of production, capitalism, creates and maintains inequality through various means to the benefit of one class against another. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification, but it's still a better place for you to start than with the idea that we're against personal responsibility and just want to give handouts to the entire population.

I would absolutely love to elaborate further, going into full detail the reasoning for all of my conclusions. It's why I asked those questions at the start of my previous post (which you didn't read !!!). I can assure you that whatever preconceived ideas you have of what we believe are wrong, and I think you'd see that if we opened the door for further discussion beyond surface-level political opinions.

It sounds good and I'd be all for it if our country was filled with ethically and morally sound individuals. But we live in a society where it's common for people to pop out as many kids as they can, kick out the dad, for that sweet government paper. The more you give the more the shitty ones will take and in a population of 300 million+, maybe I'm just a pessimist, I'd say the majority of low wage workers would jump at the opportunity to do less and get more.

 

Maybe controversial but, I'd rather them continue to lower their own quality of life and those they are responsible for, than lower mine and everyone elses in the form of being a drain on the system that they could otherwise not be if they had self motivation.

 

I'll also provide this point which I had a discussion with someone, if you increase the minimum wage to your definition of "liveable" (not sure what you would set that as feel free to let me know as I'd say defining what liveable is in this case is something we should have done on page one), what happens if low skill workers are replaced by kiosks/computers. I'm not talking people who are already established in a career and their company swaps them out for a computer, they'll be fine, they've built a resume up. I'm talking about the cashier at mcdonalds who's worked 40 hours a week for the last 6 years while not learning any skills to improve their life, and they suddenly get replaced by a computer? We know it's just a matter of time anyway but increasing the minimum wage would seriously speed up this transition. We all know companies will increase their profits wherever feasible, why then would they not replace their cashiers at every location with the hot new system, retain maybe 5% just to have 1-2 people at each location in case something goes wrong? What happens to all those people who have spent the last few years doing nothing with their lives and making crap money at mcdonalds? They make slightly better money for 1-2 years and then can't get a job? They go get another low skilled minimum wage job?

 

I would be curious to see what you define as a "liveable" wage, and what living conditions should be the "standard" that a "liveable" wage could fund.

[ThRza]

6 hours ago, kabLe said:

It sounds good and I'd be all for it if our country was filled with ethically and morally sound individuals. But we live in a society where it's common for people to pop out as many kids as they can, kick out the dad, for that sweet government paper. The more you give the more the shitty ones will take and in a population of 300 million+, maybe I'm just a pessimist, I'd say the majority of low wage workers would jump at the opportunity to do less and get more.

 

Maybe controversial but, I'd rather them continue to lower their own quality of life and those they are responsible for, than lower mine and everyone elses in the form of being a drain on the system that they could otherwise not be if they had self motivation.

 

I'll also provide this point which I had a discussion with someone, if you increase the minimum wage to your definition of "liveable" (not sure what you would set that as feel free to let me know as I'd say defining what liveable is in this case is something we should have done on page one), what happens if low skill workers are replaced by kiosks/computers. I'm not talking people who are already established in a career and their company swaps them out for a computer, they'll be fine, they've built a resume up. I'm talking about the cashier at mcdonalds who's worked 40 hours a week for the last 6 years while not learning any skills to improve their life, and they suddenly get replaced by a computer? We know it's just a matter of time anyway but increasing the minimum wage would seriously speed up this transition. We all know companies will increase their profits wherever feasible, why then would they not replace their cashiers at every location with the hot new system, retain maybe 5% just to have 1-2 people at each location in case something goes wrong? What happens to all those people who have spent the last few years doing nothing with their lives and making crap money at mcdonalds? They make slightly better money for 1-2 years and then can't get a job? They go get another low skilled minimum wage job?

 

I would be curious to see what you define as a "liveable" wage, and what living conditions should be the "standard" that a "liveable" wage could fund.

See that's the thing...do you think people are intrinsically bad? Do people pop out of the womb predestined to be lazy bums who don't want to work? I'd argue that this isn't the case at all. It's important to consider the ways in which someone's material circumstances, that being, the way in which a person's surrounding material conditions have influenced their life, will have a significant impact on a person's development, both genetically and psychologically. I can elaborate on this if needed.

I am going to assume that you and I want the same thing: to create a society which is fair, free, and just. I completely get how you could arrive at the position that those on welfare are a drain on the system, and to continue subsidizing their, as you would put it, failures, would be unfair and unjust towards the workers. That said, I would like you to consider for a moment, that the wealth being drained from the workers isn't being done at the hands of those receiving welfare checks. It is done during the productive process. To fully explain this, we would have to begin a discussion about value and where it comes from. To give us an easier place to start that conversation, I have three questions I'd like you to answer.

1. What creates value?
2. Where does the value embedded in commodities come from? In other words, how do things get their value?
3. If a man made money from owning and overseeing the production of a factory, how exactly does he make his money?

It'll be much more convenient to go from there.

Your point about automation is an interesting and important one! I'd say that it's a problem that workers have been grappling with since we began automating the productive process in the first place. To an extent, I agree with the point you're making. It would absolutely be in the interest of the person working a "low-skill" job (I have my reservations about the term, but I'll get into that later) to attempt to build up some kind of skillset or resume. And, if possible, they should absolutely do so. But you have to ask: "Do they have easy access to resources which would allow them to do so?" I'd argue that while there are always things someone can do to improve their situation, it is not only entirely possible, but very likely, that their options are limited. To paraphrase another excerpt from my previous post: 

The material conditions of someone's life are complicated, and to analyze those conditions in isolation is reductive. In other words, everything that exists is in some way being influenced by something else. Events do not exist in isolation, and are subject to the influences of their surrounding material conditions. The same is applicable for all existing phenomena. So, if someone gets stuck with a low-paying job because of their material circumstances, is it really fair to say that it is, without a doubt, because of their individual failures? If someone is stuck in a low paying job with no way out, how will they accrue savings? Almost all of their paycheck must go towards paying for their necessities. What skills can be built when the majority of your time goes to working at McDonalds? What education opportunities are there for you if college is off the table due to expenses? Should this person be required to spend all the free time they have outside of work attempting to educate themselves and build skills, leaving little to no time for anything else? To put it another way: Is your solution universally applicable for everyone in this situation? These are important questions you need to ask when it comes to diagnosing systemic problems and offering solutions. If the problem identified and the solution given aren't universally applicable, then we need to, additionally, look into other explanations and solutions.
 

People cannot build skills if they are not given the proper resources to do so. It is therefore of extreme importance that we do everything we can to provide as many people as possible with those resources. In a lot of ways, I am referring to far more than things like free education and free healthcare, but I feel like I'm jumping the gun a little bit here. I'll save the conversation of how we can go about this for after we discuss value (consequently, we'll also discuss production, which is really where that ties in here).

I would also like to raise a point about automation that you may or may not have considered. Why is it that automation, a process which reduces the amount of necessary human labor to produce things, causes such a crisis under capitalism? Shouldn't reducing the amount of work needed to complete tasks be a net positive for society? This question isn't asking the specific reasons it happens under the capitalist mode of production, but is rather asking why we have constructed systems that operate this way. Why have we allowed automation to have negative consequences? If this is necessary, why?

To answer your question about wages. If we're to take the term "livable wage" at face value, then a livable wage is the bare minimum amount of money required to pay for the basic needs of the worker. That said, It's important to make the distinction between a living wage and a subsistence wage, the latter of which is the amount of money required to pay for only the bare necessities of life. To put it another way, a livable wage is a wage which will allow the worker to both pay for their needs, as well as lead a life that isn't completely miserable; to allow for a decent, but basic, way of living.

I have my own reservations towards the term "livable wage", as well as the advocation for merely that wage, but we'll get more into that with our discussion surrounding value.

I'm not entirely sure if I missed any of your points, so if I did please point it out to me.

[Chad]

22 hours ago, ThRza said:

 Do people pop out of the womb predestined to be lazy bums who don't want to work? 

Yes. 

 

Proof: @20 scrolls

[fucktard12]

1 minute ago, Chad said:

Yes. 

 

Proof: @20 scrolls

Why? Because he's black?

 

ADMINS ADMINS HE'S RACIST

[ArcticWolf]

1 minute ago, Chad said:

Yes. 

 

Proof: @20 scrolls

[Chad]

2 minutes ago, ArcticWolf said: