Should Trump Resign Over "Hellhole" Comment?

[carpedm9587]

You were the one going on about how you felt responsible to help others because of your privileged status! I merely pointed out that we too help others but not because we feel responsible because of our status but because we want to because we care about our fellow man. I am not saying you don't care about your fellow man, but that it seems from what you said, your primary motivation is feeling responsible because you think you are privileged and they are not but deserve to be.

No - I am saying that I help people who need it if/when they ask for it and they have made a reasonable effort to help themselves. I am also saying that my status as a white male in this society (and especially this state) has given me some automatic privileges, subtle and gross, that I did nothing to merit. I also have some privileges because I am reasonably healthy, have a reasonably sharp intellect with no learning challenges, etc.). So there are two things I would like to achieve: a) help raise awareness of these types of implicit privilege where/when they exist in our society, in hopes of bringing them more into balance. b) Look for and promote actual things people can do that can help counter/level these forms of systemic privilege, especially if they are rooted in historical injustices.

No single individual should ever be judged by these "universal" concepts. That's just a form of reverse racism/genderism/ethnicism, which is why I have no use for affirmative action. But I also think there is more than ample evidence that systemic privilege and injustice is part of our society, our culture, and our nation. They manifests, to differing degrees, on lines of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and so forth.

Just a simple example. As a male, I seldom have to deal with sexual harassment publicly in the workplace. A woman walking down a street, in a workplace, and a variety of venues, has a high probability of facing various forms and levels of sexual harassment on a regular basis. I have the privilege of not having to deal with that. Many (most?) women don't. That is a form of privilege, and it is a reasonable goal, on my part, to promote a culture/society where women do not have to face that crap. That doesn't mean every woman does - it doesn't mean I treat women as "fragile little things that need to be protected." It means I begin to adopt a position of challenging my fellow males when they make sexist comments, and when they behave inappropriately with women. I join my wife on the woman's march. I teach my sons not to speak that way, and don't let their friends do so in my hearing. I link to articles about the issue to my facebook page. I talk about it here. I don't have to walk around feeling "guilty" to do these things. I simply have to want to level the playing field.

There are other examples.

[Juvenal]

If I run a business, and I offer a job at $9.00 an hour (sweeping floors, for example) and I get multiple applicants for that job, the person I hire (and who accepts that job) agrees to work for that amount. It is not "theft" in any sense of the word. That person does not have to accept my money.

Seeing as we're 500+ posts in, and there's no longer any pretense of following the original topic ... I'm generally amazed that folks find these arguments at all compelling, if you'll pardon the pun.

You know, I did most of my early discussion board posting on muslim boards or boards that solicited comment from muslims (if you don't mind my calling hijacking jihadi websites and redirecting them "soliciting comment.") One of the most common jaw-droppers came from jihadis who would claim the folks they converted made a choice to do so. They didn't have to accept the terms.

They were free to die instead.

Or go hungry, mut. mut.

Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting you here, what exactly did you figure was the alternative to your profferred choice?

[Darth Executor]

Seeing as we're 500+ posts in, and there's no longer any pretense of following the original topic ... I'm generally amazed that folks find these arguments at all compelling, if you'll pardon the pun.

You know, I did most of my early discussion board posting on muslim boards or boards that solicited comment from muslims (if you don't mind my calling hijacking jihadi websites and redirecting them "soliciting comment.") One of the most common jaw-droppers came from jihadis who would claim the folks they converted made a choice to do so. They didn't have to accept the terms.

They were free to die instead.

Or go hungry, mut. mut.

Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting you here, what exactly did you figure was the alternative to your profferred choice?

Why can't liberals and atheists ever differentiate between doing something to someone and not doing something for someone? Not paying someone (or not paying them to your satisfaction) is not in the same league as forcing someone to do something.

[rogue06]

Seeing as we're 500+ posts in, and there's no longer any pretense of following the original topic ... I'm generally amazed that folks find these arguments at all compelling, if you'll pardon the pun.

You know, I did most of my early discussion board posting on muslim boards or boards that solicited comment from muslims (if you don't mind my calling hijacking jihadi websites and redirecting them "soliciting comment.") One of the most common jaw-droppers came from jihadis who would claim the folks they converted made a choice to do so. They didn't have to accept the terms.

They were free to die instead.

Or go hungry, mut. mut.

Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting you here, what exactly did you figure was the alternative to your profferred choice?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that if they don't accept CP's offer then they will be doomed to never find work elsewhere

Not all that long ago (about a decade and a half) I went in for an interview where the company offered me $9²⁵/hr starting pay. I told them given that I had nearly ten years experience in that field that their offer was nothing short of a slap in the face insult, stood up and walked out. Two weeks later I accepted a position doing essentially the same job for another company at $16/hr with a promise of a $3⁵⁰/hr raise after 3 months of "probation."

[carpedm9587]

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that if they don't accept CP's offer then they will be doomed to never find work elsewhere

Not all that long ago (about a decade and a half) I went in for an interview where the company offered me $9²⁵/hr starting pay. I told them given that I had nearly ten years experience in that field that their offer was nothing short of a slap in the face insult, stood up and walked out. Two weeks later I accepted a position doing essentially the same job for another company at $16/hr with a promise of a $3⁵⁰/hr raise after 3 months of "probation."

As I've noted many times, an example is not an argument.

There are jobs for teens who are starting out, and I have no problem with them getting what they can get. Any job should (and often does) have a reasonable probationary period, and I have no problem with that. But when the full-time personnel in the rank and file of any company are going home with less than a living wage while the top-most echelons of the company and its owners ar eliving in the lap of luxury and pulling down hundreds of thousands or millions, what you have is no more or less than theft of labor. Yes - some people will be able to go elsewhere and get better paying jobs. But there will always be those that can't and such companies prey on exactly that kind of person.

If they don't do the job or don't do it well - fire them. If they do the job and do it well, unless there are mitigating circumstances, they should be paid a living wage, IMO.

[rogue06]

As I've noted many times, an example is not an argument.

Low-pay and part-time jobs for teens as "starter" jobs I have no issue with. The person has no background, is just starting out, and likely being supported at home.

There are jobs for teens who are starting out, and I have no problem with them getting what they can get. Any job should (and often does) have a reasonable probationary period, and I have no problem with that. But when the full-time personnel in the rank and file of any company are going home with less than a living wage while the top-most echelons of the company and its owners ar eliving in the lap of luxury and pulling down hundreds of thousands or millions, what you have is no more or less than theft of labor. Yes - some people will be able to go elsewhere and get better paying jobs. But there will always be those that can't and such companies prey on exactly that kind of person.

If they don't do the job or don't do it well - fire them. If they do the job and do it well, unless there are mitigating circumstances, they should be paid a living wage, IMO.

The point that you seem to be deliberately overlooking was in the first sentence

[Teallaura]

Why can't liberals and atheists ever differentiate between doing something to someone and not doing something for someone? Not paying someone (or not paying them to your satisfaction) is not in the same league as forcing someone to do something.

DE, if the only job available to anyone pays too little to meet expenses, but there are a dozen applicants ready to take that job if the person quits and no other job that they can get, how exactly do they have a real choice?

This isn't analogous to the current situation but has in fact happened in the US in living (okay, just barely) memory.

It's not theft, strictly speaking, but deliberately underpaying is no different than using eminent domain and paying only market value which usually is less than what a private sale might yield. Both are unfair.

[carpedm9587]

The point that you seem to be deliberately overlooking was in the first sentence

I'm not aware of overlooking a point. To what point are you referring.

And I am not deliberately ignoring anything. What IS it with the frequenters of this site's perpetual need to tell someone else what they are thinking or what their intentions are?

[Teallaura]

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that if they don't accept CP's offer then they will be doomed to never find work elsewhere

Not all that long ago (about a decade and a half) I went in for an interview where the company offered me $9²⁵/hr starting pay. I told them given that I had nearly ten years experience in that field that their offer was nothing short of a slap in the face insult, stood up and walked out. Two weeks later I accepted a position doing essentially the same job for another company at $16/hr with a promise of a $3⁵⁰/hr raise after 3 months of "probation."

He's actually assuming that many employers pay in the same range - which is true of most unskilled/low skilled jobs.

I talked to a young man Tuesday night who had just finished his last shift at Sonic and was to start a new job the next day. His pay scale was increasing from $3.15/hr at Sonic to $4.00/hr at a car wash. Both are exceptions to the Fed min wage because they may receive tips.

A waitress in a popular bar can pull down a good bit in tips (but they have extremely uncertain budgets) - but the same is not true at either a fast food place or a car wash.

When the labor market is saturated, unemployment being high - an employer is an idiot to pay generously - they can get the same labor cheaper any time. When inflation is at work a perfectly fair package can be unfair in a heartbeat.

I don't know the answer - some regulation, yes, but strangling the employer for the vagueries of the job market isn't fair, either. But 'they can just get another job' may not be immediately true and it's not okay to turn a blind eye to the fact.

[Juvenal]

DE, if the only job available to anyone pays too little to meet expenses, but there are a dozen applicants ready to take that job if the person quits and no other job that they can get, how exactly do they have a real choice?

You're taking Darthie seriously again.

It's not theft, strictly speaking, but deliberately underpaying is no different than using eminent domain and paying only market value which usually is less than what a private sale might yield. Both are unfair.

If we're talking about wage theft, we should talk about actual wage theft, as I'd imagine carpe intended. That generally means asking employees to work off the clock, literally stealing wages, or, alternatively, failing to pay overtime rates. Walmart, just for example, is a serial offender.

Another common practice is hiring exempt positions with salaries just under the cutoff, around $25k/yr. The marine's wife had a position like that, where she was expected to work 60-hour weeks.

[Teallaura]

You're taking Darthie seriously again.

Well, I take you seriously more often than not - and you don't even exist.

If we're talking about wage theft, we should talk about actual wage theft, as I'd imagine carpe intended. That generally means asking employees to work off the clock, literally stealing wages, or, alternatively, failing to pay overtime rates. Walmart, just for example, is a serial offender.

Another common practice is hiring exempt positions with salaries just under the cutoff, around $25k/yr. The marine's wife had a position like that, where she was expected to work 60-hour weeks.

Um, no - that wasn't what Carpe was talking about at all. I fully agree those are examples of actual theft - but Carpe defined 'wage theft' as 'paying less than a living wage'. While I'm not at all unsympathetic to the idea of a living wage (in concept, the practice I'm much less sure of), Carpe's definition does not actually define a true theft.

I'm beginning to question the practice of taxing tips as part of income as it's done now. For a single job holder receiving a mean of $500 / month with no other household income, I think that income should be exempted entirely. Businesses that pay less than standard minimum would pay standard minimum for employees that received less than $6000 / year in tips regardless of tax exemption.

I think it's a fair way to do it - it is far from a painless way since food, lodging and evidently now car washing industries are built on a model of having the customer pay directly for labor instead of the company paying for it. It absolutely could not be implemented overnight - but it could be done in stages over time.

[Juvenal]

Well, I take you seriously more often than not - and you don't even exist.

Let's not pretend non-existence is of comparable worth.

Um, no - that wasn't what Carpe was talking about at all. I fully agree those are examples of actual theft - but Carpe defined 'wage theft' as 'paying less than a living wage'. While I'm not at all unsympathetic to the idea of a living wage (in concept, the practice I'm much less sure of), Carpe's definition does not actually define a true theft.

I'll let carpe chime in on what he meant by wage theft, specifically. Not following too closely, but it appeared to me he was side-tracked into a living wage discussion.

One way or another, everyone has a living wage. In practice, all too many employers resort to leaving the remainder up to government largesse in the form of food stamps, housing assistance and other programs. Walmart isn't merely a serial offender on this, it's part of their business model. There's even a name for it, "corporate welfare."

I'm beginning to question the practice of taxing tips as part of income as it's done now. For a single job holder receiving a mean of $500 / month with no other household income, I think that income should be exempted entirely. Businesses that pay less than standard minimum would pay standard minimum for employees that received less than $6000 / year in tips regardless of tax exemption.

I think it's a fair way to do it - it is far from a painless way since food, lodging and evidently now car washing industries are built on a model of having the customer pay directly for labor instead of the company paying for it. It absolutely could not be implemented overnight - but it could be done in stages over time.

I'm not at all unsympathetic to paying no more than one's competitors for labor, but when corporate profits and only corporate profits, not wages, increase with productivity, as they have since the 70s, that's not a fluke, that's HR holding down the bar. But depressing wages is a losing game for the larger economy because businesses can only prosper when customers can afford their products. It's time to bump the minimum wage again. That can be done in stages, over time, too.

The fair way to handle this is to push the bar up for everyone, and this is surely the time to do so. Corporate profits are unreal. My entire portfolio is in index funds, and I'm up fifty percent from two years ago, enough to think seriously about retiring again and starting another world tour.

[Teallaura]

You, you nonexistent fink! No fair coming up with something I not only can't disagree with, I'm forced to amen!

You're not supposed to be so danged reasonable!!!!

[Tassman]

It has everything to do with self loathing. Instead of being grateful for what you have you view it as a burden you need to unload. It's mental. I genuinely hope people like you lose every bit of material wealth you have. I think a year of two of panhandling would work miracles on your diseased mindset.

It has nothing to do with "self loathing", it's a mater of being human and exercising responsibility and care towards our fellows. We have evolved to live in community and for any social species such as us, the benefits of being part of a well-functioning community far outweigh the benefits of selfish individualism.

[carpedm9587]

Well, I take you seriously more often than not - and you don't even exist.

Um, no - that wasn't what Carpe was talking about at all. I fully agree those are examples of actual theft - but Carpe defined 'wage theft' as 'paying less than a living wage'. While I'm not at all unsympathetic to the idea of a living wage (in concept, the practice I'm much less sure of), Carpe's definition does not actually define a true theft.

I'm beginning to question the practice of taxing tips as part of income as it's done now. For a single job holder receiving a mean of $500 / month with no other household income, I think that income should be exempted entirely. Businesses that pay less than standard minimum would pay standard minimum for employees that received less than $6000 / year in tips regardless of tax exemption.

I think it's a fair way to do it - it is far from a painless way since food, lodging and evidently now car washing industries are built on a model of having the customer pay directly for labor instead of the company paying for it. It absolutely could not be implemented overnight - but it could be done in stages over time.

If I used the term "wage theft," then I was less than clear. What is happening, IMO, is that labor is being taken without compensation. What is being stolen is labor. I suppose you could reverse that and say that what is being stolen is the wages that labor should have earned. I recognize the difficulty in establishing bounds that are consistent, so it is possible that this is not a problem to be solved in law, but rather using social pressure/means.

And your statement about plentiful labor and lower wages is understood - but reflects a business world that has one metric: money. I do not subscribe to that view for the same reason that I do not subscribe to the view that my only priority in life is my family. They are my highest priority, but there are times that I have asked my family to sacrifice, sometimes even painfully, because someone with a greater need than ours, who was not able to meet that need themselves, needed our help. Like people, a business occupies a social niche, and I subscribe to the philosophy that businesses have both financial and social obligations.

When a business drops wages below a "living wage" because labor is plentiful and they CAN, they are ignoring the impact on the people that are working for them, who are now receiving less than they need to survive, but are still working full time. They are forcing parents to get multiple jobs, compromising their ability to be present to their family. The impact is significant. They are, in effect, putting money above people. It is not the way I believe an ethical business should operate. It is not the way I have ever run my business. If I used that ethic, I could have been a millionaire several times over by now. I have always worked b the ethic that I will not make my fortunes on the backs of others. I pay people who do the same things I do the same amount I get paid, less only a modest amount to cover my costs for coordinating the activity, maintaining the client accounts, etc. The lowest paid people in my organization are paid at least a living wage, and I have repeatedly reduced my own salary (which is generous) before I will reduce theirs.

I cannot justify CEOs/COOs/CIOs that walk away with tens and hundreds of millions when the lowest paid members of their organization are struggling to put food on the table, clothe themselves and their children, maintain shelter, and ensure adequate healthcare. If everyone is being paid a living wage, then I don't CARE how much the owners pocket. I do not have a negative opinion of rich people; I have a negative opinion of rich people who made their money at the unjust expense of others. I recognize that businesses sometimes have to make hard decisions. I have lived through that. Sometimes, the decision is "cut people, cut wages, or die." I am simply saying, if the decision is to cut wages, the philosophy I outlined above should (ethically) govern.