Five Truths you cannot disagree with

[tbwinner]

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity

2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it is no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I know the majority of the members here in Off-topic are conservative, but I'm interested in anyone providing well thought-out, major arguments against these (I know, that seems near-impossible here!).

-C

[lamboguy]

you can't be lazy and lucky

[johnhannibalsmith]

you can't be lazy and lucky

And boy did Malachi Constant learn that on the road to enlightenment.

[mostpost]

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
The problem with this one is that you think we are trying to legislate the poor into an undeserved prosperity by unfairly legislating against the wealthy. So you consider minimum wage a plot to steal from the wealthy, when it is really a plan to pay workers fairly. You consider unions a device to take control of a business from the owner when it is a method of leveling the playing field between worker and owner.

Negotiating with one worker, the owner can dictate the terms of employment, and he will always dictate terms that are most favorable to him. This is the case regardless of how fair minded or benevolent the owner may be. The difference is only in degree. The union, by negotiating for all the workers, is able to negotiate from a position of strength. The owner suddenly sees that the 25 cent an hour raise is economically feasible.



2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
If I work on the assembly line at General Motors and you sit at home collecting dividends from your General Motors stock, which one of us is the giver and which the taker? It works both ways. Forget the idea that so called 47% are all people who do no work. Most of them have jobs, but do not earn enough or have families to take care of that puts them in the position where they do not have a federal income tax obligation. The difference between you and I is that you think they want to continue in this status whereas I know they do not.

Also this is not a quid pro quo. You are one of the 53% that pays taxes. So am I. If part of our tax money goes to provide food for those in need, or to pay for heating, or to help with other expenses all that does for them is to allow them to live at a minimum level of comfort. In the meantime, what have we given up?

You saw me at the Arlington meetup. Do I look like I have missed any meals?
To a lesser degree neither do you. I own a nice car (four fifths of it anyway), a fifty five inch color TV, a computer to annoy the folks at Pace Advantage, and money to play the horses. I really don't feel that I am being put upon.



3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
This statement is true but meaningless. Government taxes its citizens in order to provide whatever is necessary for those citizens to live safe and productive lives. Government arranges for the building and maintenance of roads and bridges. It provides schools, police and fire protection. It maintains a defense establishment. It helps those in need.
Government is not taking anything from you. It is charging you for the services it provides to you. If some of those services are not pertinent to you, if you live in a community with little crime, you should be grateful for that and not complain about having to pay for more police in less fortunate areas.


4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
This is absolutely untrue. In fact I will go so far as to say the opposite is true.
Before I go any further let me make it clear that I am not advocating taxing the wealthy for the sole purpose of paying the poor to do nothing.

As always I advocate strong unions to eliminate the pay gap that has developed over the past thirty years. Without looking it up I believe the average CEO now earns 400 times what one of his workers earns in a year. That number was 25 times in the 70's.

How do you multiply wealth by dividing it? If all the wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the rest of the people have just enough-or not enough to get by, there will be little spending done. The people on top already have everything, while those on the bottom can afford nothing. But give those people on the bottom and in the middle class a little more and they will spend that money. They will spend it with the businesses owned by the top percenters and by the middle class business man. Henry Ford figured that our 100 years ago and you have all forgotten it.


5) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it is no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
The fallacy here is that have the people think they do not have to work or do not want to work. Most of that half are already working, they just do not have good jobs. Of that percentage who are not working, only a small percentage do not wish to work and feel the world owes them a living. A much smaller percentage than you imagine.

It always amazes me how conservatives are always so quick to ascribe the meanest of motives to every one else while holding themselves in such high regard. Overcompensation??

I know the majority of the members here in Off-topic are conservative, but I'm interested in anyone providing well thought-out, major arguments against these (I know, that seems near-impossible here!).

-C

So, it turns out it wasn't near impossible at all.

I would have been more impressed with out post if you had not copied 90% of it from somewhere else. (Without attribution, I might add).

I have definitely seen those five points before, maybe even on this forum.

[Tom]

If I work on the assembly line at General Motors and you sit at home collecting dividends from your General Motors stock, which one of us is the giver and which the taker? It works both ways.

That is the most ignorant thing you ever posted, and that is saying a lot!The guy who invested in GM has given MORE and has more at stake than the guy working there.The worker is the taker. Your lack of fundamental economics is frightening and seriously, at a grade school level. Without the guy at home investing the worker has no job. He is your uncle sugar. Your work, such as it is, is of no value without HIS company.

[tbwinner]

Meant to include the place i got this from...My mistake, was not intentional:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151126569637740&set=a.93334652739.88992.92943557739&type=1&theater


I don't have a ton of time, right now, to respond to you without thinking through everything, but one thing I know I disagree with is your view on investors, as in the General Motors example. For some reason, liberals have a condescending view towards INVESTORS, the people that in part make those jobs possible for "sitting at home collecting dividends." Listen, I think we can both agree that the employees and management, on simple terms, need to work together for equal ability to success to co-exist.

[Greyfox]

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity

2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it is no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I know the majority of the members here in Off-topic are conservative, but I'm interested in anyone providing well thought-out, major arguments against these (I know, that seems near-impossible here!).

-C

Those "truths" were not written by you tbwinner.
They were written by Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers, and you should have at least given him credit.

[tbwinner]

Those "truths" were not written by you tbwinner.
They were written by Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers, and you should have at least given him credit.

See post #6. Sorry, I was in a rush and meant to include it. Never intended to make them my own.

[sammy the sage]

The truth depends on THE condition you're in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2P7WMEUkuo

[Valuist]

That is the most ignorant thing you ever posted, and that is saying a lot!The guy who invested in GM has given MORE and has more at stake than the guy working there.The worker is the taker. Your lack of fundamental economics is frightening and seriously, at a grade school level. Without the guy at home investing the worker has no job. He is your uncle sugar. Your work, such as it is, is of no value without HIS company.

Was just going to post the same thing. He apparently believes investors are evil.

[mostpost]

That is the most ignorant thing you ever posted, and that is saying a lot!The guy who invested in GM has given MORE and has more at stake than the guy working there.The worker is the taker. Your lack of fundamental economics is frightening and seriously, at a grade school level. Without the guy at home investing the worker has no job. He is your uncle sugar. Your work, such as it is, is of no value without HIS company.
What is ignorant is your refusal to give any credit to the person making the product. Your investor can invest a billion dollars and it is worthless if no one is on that assembly line installing that door on that SUV or connecting the wiring that powers the windshield wipers or doing any of the thousand jobs that transform a bunch of parts into an automobile. Your company has no value without my work.

[mostpost]

Meant to include the place i got this from...My mistake, was not intentional:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151126569637740&set=a.93334652739.88992.92943557739&type=1&theater


I don't have a ton of time, right now, to respond to you without thinking through everything, but one thing I know I disagree with is your view on investors, as in the General Motors example. For some reason, liberals have a condescending view towards INVESTORS, the people that in part make those jobs possible for "sitting at home collecting dividends." Listen, I think we can both agree that the employees and management, on simple terms, need to work together for equal ability to success to co-exist.
Although it may seem to some that I do not appreciate the role of the investor that is not the case. I just don't over value it like some here do. Tom-in number five here thinks that all workers should be grateful to have any job and should accept any salary and working conditions the master is kind enough to bestow on them. Workers have value and they should be treated commensurate with that value, but more and more lately they are looked at as commodity to used any way the company sees fit.

At least you said Investors in part make those jobs possible. But I fear you think that the other part is the owner of the business. I fear you do not consider the worker as the third part of that equation. Hopefully I am wrong.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What is ignorant is your refusal to give any credit to the person making the product. Your investor can invest a billion dollars and it is worthless if no one is on that assembly line installing that door on that SUV or connecting the wiring that powers the windshield wipers or doing any of the thousand jobs that transform a bunch of parts into an automobile. Your company has no value without my work.

We haven't had this circular debate in, what, a week now?

Come to grips with one reality - there will always be someone to assemble a screen door or install wipers on the SUV for a paycheck. We wouldn't need your beloved minimum wage if that weren't the case. Your hypothetical may be logical to the extent that one side needs the other, but you need to cite a segment of the labor/capital dynamic where one component of the equation isn't in abundance in relation to the other.

[mostpost]

Those "truths" were not written by you tbwinner.
They were written by Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers, and you should have at least given him credit.

Well, I'm glad we know that those opinions came from that noted economist and financier Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers. Wait a minute, Dr. Rogers was not a noted economist and financier? He was a baptist preacher? A Baptist preacher who also made this statement. "I believe slavery is a much maligned institution; if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess." Of course he later said he was misquoted but there are at least two sources for the quote.

I would have given more credence to the five statements if they had been made by tbwinner rather than that guy.

[mostpost]

We haven't had this circular debate in, what, a week now?

Come to grips with one reality - there will always be someone to assemble a screen door or install wipers on the SUV for a paycheck. We wouldn't need your beloved minimum wage if that weren't the case. Your hypothetical may be logical to the extent that one side needs the other, but you need to cite a segment of the labor/capital dynamic where one component of the equation isn't in abundance in relation to the other.

And there will always be someone wanting to invest.

We are having this debate because you conservatives can't seem to grasp what I am saying. Stop thinking of "worker" as a particular person. Because you can replace one worker with another does not mean that you can do without workers at all. Workers are essential. You can not run a business without them.

I keep hearing that the free market will keep wages fair. That if a person does not like what he is being paid at one company he can go to another and find a better deal. Yet here you say there is an abundance of labor-more labor than jobs to be done. How does that square with the idea of workers playing employers off against each other to maximize his salary.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because you can replace one worker with another does not mean that you can do without workers at all. Workers are essential. You can not run a business without them.Yes you can do without workers...you just need to automate your business.

I know of no way to automate investment capital.

In any event, you are missing the key point. There are way more worker bees out there then there are queen bees. Once you look at it this way, maybe you'll understand why the queen bee gets the royal jelly...

[johnhannibalsmith]

And there will always be someone wanting to invest.

I'm not sure how you can really believe that this is the case.

We are having this debate because you conservatives can't seem to grasp what I am saying. Stop thinking of "worker" as a particular person. Because you can replace one worker with another does not mean that you can do without workers at all. Workers are essential. You can not run a business without them.

I keep hearing that the free market will keep wages fair. That if a person does not like what he is being paid at one company he can go to another and find a better deal. Yet here you say there is an abundance of labor-more labor than jobs to be done. How does that square with the idea of workers playing employers off against each other to maximize his salary.

There are a number of things that I obviously disagree with here, beginning with sentence number one and extending to being considered "conservative", as in "you conservatives", since I'm not really someone that really fits in with most conservatives. On this subject in particular, I certainly could best be considered the Switzerland that Mack has termed me. It is one of the clearest examples of where in economic-y theory that simple relationships to support a theory just don't seem to cut it when stacked up against reality.

My point is that if you want to make your point more successfully, it would be wise to avoid using examples that rely on what is basically unskilled labor - a segment of the workforce that depends upon a minimum wage to keep the laws of supply and demand from devaluing their contribution because of their interchangability due to volume and inability to truly be "in demand" . But then again, you think that capital and investors are limitless and at worst proportional to available labor in the bottom tiers, so I guess it really doesn't matter.

[HUSKER55]

that is what logo did. they use robots and if memory serves they only employ 6 mechanics.

[Tom]

Workers have value and they should be treated commensurate with that value,

That is why jobs are going overseas - same value, far less cost.
Deal with it - workers are not the key ingredient anymore.
Your value as a worker is now dependent on what anyone world-wide can do the job for.

You like rice? :D

[RaceBookJoe]

Bottom line is this : The employer hires someone at $20/hr so the worker can take care of the $20/hr jobs while the employer can take care of the $200/hr things. If the worker doesnt like it or doesnt do that job well enough, the worker is entitled to leave and the employer is entitled to find someone better.

[Pace Cap'n]

Government taxes its citizens in order to provide whatever is necessary for those citizens to live safe and productive lives.

Government does not have citizens. Citizens have government.

[Tom]

Can I get an Amen, Brutha?

That is the fundamental flaw in the lib mindset.

[NJ Stinks]

That is why jobs are going overseas - same value, far less cost.
Deal with it - workers are not the key ingredient anymore.
Your value as a worker is now dependent on what anyone world-wide can do the job for.

You like rice? :D

There's that wonderful sense of humor of yours that I hear so much about. :rolleyes:

I can't wait to read your wisecracks about all the homes in foreclosure. And don't forget Americans living in poverty, Tom. :jump:

[Tom]

No humor at all, NJ. Just truth.
Just at home, we have over 23 million out of work - if one of them will do your job for 75% of your pay, would I not be crazy not to hire him and get rid of you? Your services are no longer worth what they cost. Your worth is only what one needs to pay for the service you provide. Most people, regardless of their egos, do not offer much of any value anymore. There is little most Americans can do that a few hungry Chinese cannot do cheaper.

It is sad. Sad that we know China is manipulating the value of our dollar costing us jobs and our president is too busy going on the View and Letterman to do a damn thing about it. Sad that there are billions of dollars sitting overseas that business want to invest here, but cannot with all the uncertainty Obama has created.

But feel free to whine about it an hope your messiah will save you.
He will not.

Or do something about it.

[boxcar]

What is ignorant is your refusal to give any credit to the person making the product. Your investor can invest a billion dollars and it is worthless if no one is on that assembly line installing that door on that SUV or connecting the wiring that powers the windshield wipers or doing any of the thousand jobs that transform a bunch of parts into an automobile. Your company has no value without my work.

But you would have no work without investors. In fact, there would be no company without investors. When was the last time you saw a poor worker start up a major business? The MONEY of investors has been on the table and at risk long before the first person is hired to do diddly!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Can I get an Amen, Brutha?

That is the fundamental flaw in the lib mindset.

And that is NOT going to change. This is the central tenet to the New World Order: The elite ruling class OWNS the masses. The people are nothing more than slaves whose only reason for existence is do the will of their highly intelligent and wealthy masters.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

you got your union but venzuela gets the jobs. where is the gain?

[Native Texan III]

But you would have no work without investors. In fact, there would be no company without investors. When was the last time you saw a poor worker start up a major business? The MONEY of investors has been on the table and at risk long before the first person is hired to do diddly!

Boxcar

And where do you think the investors got their spare money to invest from?
A person is at risk from the day he or she is born.

[Native Texan III]

you got your union but venzuela gets the jobs. where is the gain?

A very few more years on better employment conditions.
Then join with the deluded masses that once believed in the "American Dream".

[TJDave]

Yes you can do without workers...you just need to automate your business.


Who's gonna buy the products of companies that automate?

[Pace Cap'n]

Who's gonna buy the products of companies that automate?

Automatons.

[GameTheory]

Who's gonna buy the products of companies that automate?Everybody. They'll be cheaper. And they will be the parts in every other product. Nothing wrong with automation...

[TJDave]

Who's gonna buy the products of companies that automate?

Everybody. They'll be cheaper. And they will be the parts in every other product. Nothing wrong with automation...

Automation is great, especially for thems who used to be workers. Now that they're not working they'll have more free time to shop. ;)

[GameTheory]

Automation is great, especially for thems who used to be workers. Now that they're not working they'll have more free time to shop. ;)

Damn those machines! Taking our jobs! 200 years later, we still haven't learned...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/FrameBreaking-1812.jpg