Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Cow Poke]

See, that's my problem:

This is true.

[lilpixieofterror]

You need to factor in cost of living and what we collectively consider a minimum baseline of living in American society.

And have you visited a 3rd world country Sam? Many of them live in things we'd call shacks, scrapping by on pennies a day. Even the poorest here in the states, live better than they do. Even the ones we'd call 'developing nations' live in some pretty poor conditions too. The workers in the richer middle eastern countries, live on scraps, while the locals live in nice houses that would be the envy of even the rich here in the states (they get their labor force from promises of decent pay, by traveling to a very poor country, but pay them wages that make min wage look like earning a mint). While it is entertaining to watch you make excuses for your own greed, you wouldn't mind redistributing your income to the 80-90% of the world population poorer than you, would you?

[Sam]

OK



Only to the anal retentive pedantic who has to analyze everything in that regard. Somehow, I've managed to get to be 60+ years old, and make good choices, and have a nice life without overanalyzing everything as "moral" or "immoral".



I'll give that a mull.



OR, it could mean that I'm not so anal retentive and pedantic that I have to put neat little labels on everything!



OK

That is a particular curse of mine, I admit. But it's a burden rather than a flaw — understanding exactly what we mean when we say something is a good thing, not a bad thing!

[Sam]

And have you visited a 3rd world country Sam? Many of them live in things we'd call shacks, scrapping by on pennies a day. Even the poorest here in the states, live better than they do. Even the ones we'd call 'developing nations' live in some pretty poor conditions too. The workers in the richer middle eastern countries, live on scraps, while the locals live in nice houses that would be the envy of even the rich here in the states (they get their labor force from promises of decent pay, by traveling to a very poor country, but pay them wages that make min wage look like earning a mint). While it is entertaining to watch you make excuses for your own greed, you wouldn't mind redistributing your income to the 80-90% of the world population poorer than you, would you?

Well, that's exactly why I said that you need to factor in cost of living and a baseline standard of living. Unless you're arguing that full-time workers in America should be vulnerable to living in shacks and subsisting on third-world standards of living, the figures you referenced don't mean much in relation to this conversation. We can certainly argue that wealth distribution in the international community needs to be more equalized but that doesn't negate the argument that wealth distribution in the national community needs to be more equalized.

[Cow Poke]

That is a particular curse of mine, I admit. But it's a burden rather than a flaw — understanding exactly what we mean when we say something is a good thing, not a bad thing!

Cool.

I wanted to be sure I used "anal retentive" correctly, as it has been literally AGES since I've used that expression, and I haven't used it very often at all.

Here it is -- used in everyday language to describe a person with so much attention to detail that the obsession becomes annoying to other people. The idea was thought up by Sigmund Freud.



Why can't you just DISCUSS things?

I think I'm a lot more pragmatic, which makes me have a very low tolerance for your .... um... "type".

I should keep that in mind.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, that's exactly why I said that you need to factor in cost of living and a baseline standard of living.

You mean you need to make excuses for you living in luxury and them living in hastily thrown together shanty towns. Here is how some of the poorest live, over in those areas of the world:

_55942_sale-shanty-town.jpg

So when do we start redistributing wealth in the west, to them?

Unless you're arguing that full-time workers in America should be vulnerable to living in shacks and subsisting on third-world standards of living, the figures you referenced don't mean much in relation to this conversation. We can certainly argue that wealth distribution in the international community needs to be more equalized but that doesn't negate the argument that wealth distribution in the national community needs to be more equalized.

They mean a lot Sam because even our poorest here in the states, live in pretty decent conditions compared to many other places in the world. Isn't it kind of selfish to complain because you can't afford a new car, while there's people that can't afford a sold wall, for their shanty?

[Sam]

Cool.

I wanted to be sure I used "anal retentive" correctly, as it has been literally AGES since I've used that expression, and I haven't used it very often at all.

Here it is -- used in everyday language to describe a person with so much attention to detail that the obsession becomes annoying to other people. The idea was thought up by Sigmund Freud.



Why can't you just DISCUSS things?

I think I'm a lot more pragmatic, which makes me have a very low tolerance for your .... um... "type".

I should keep that in mind.

This is me discussing things! This is how my brain works; analyzing and identifying information, putting it into proper components and ordering thoughts to extreme details.

INTJ, if we're getting into the psychoanalysis aspect of it.

More concrete or pragmatic thinkers definitely do have a low tolerance for analytical thinkers, and vice versa. It's two completely opposite ways of thinking. Analytical thinkers are looking at patterns, abstractions ... ordering particular things into their general forms. For concrete thinkers, though, such ordering is difficult, if not impossible — this thing is itself and cannot be that thing.

I'd say that debate lends itself to analytical thinking, personally — but then again, an analytical thinker would say that!

[Adrift]

Cool.

I wanted to be sure I used "anal retentive" correctly, as it has been literally AGES since I've used that expression, and I haven't used it very often at all.

Here it is -- used in everyday language to describe a person with so much attention to detail that the obsession becomes annoying to other people. The idea was thought up by Sigmund Freud.



Why can't you just DISCUSS things?

I think I'm a lot more pragmatic, which makes me have a very low tolerance for your .... um... "type".

I should keep that in mind.

I think part of the problem, CP, is that sometimes people in these sorts of debates (especially in religious and political debates) tend to overstate their case, and exaggerate the other side's case. What ends up happening is that the discussion then becomes about how to clear up those overstatements and exaggerations rather than the topic at hand. Sam simply has a tendency to make sure that all the ducks are in a row before moving the conversation forward because he doesn't want people to misunderstand or misrepresent his views and he wants to make sure that he doesn't misrepresent or misunderstand your views either. That's happened already a couple times here on both sides.

[Cow Poke]

This is me discussing things! This is how my brain works; analyzing and identifying information, putting it into proper components and ordering thoughts to extreme details.

INTJ, if we're getting into the psychoanalysis aspect of it.

More concrete or pragmatic thinkers definitely do have a low tolerance for analytical thinkers, and vice versa. It's two completely opposite ways of thinking. Analytical thinkers are looking at patterns, abstractions ... ordering particular things into their general forms. For concrete thinkers, though, such ordering is difficult, if not impossible — this thing is itself and cannot be that that thing.

I'd say that debate lends itself to analytical thinking, personally — but then again, an analytical thinker would say that!

I'll try to keep this in mind for future interactions, should there be any.

ME --- who was it that said "how can I know what I think til I hear myself say it"..... I'm MUCH less worried about the minute details --- I like to explore how I think and why. Sometimes, I'll say something out loud, just "thinking out loud", and I'll say "boy was that dumb". Other times, I think, "wow, that's good - I should write that down".

So......

What GOOD is it for you to force a very TECHNICAL definition on "unfunded mandate" when the PRACTICAL implication is that it does the same thing as your TECHNICAL definition.

Kinda reminds me about the story of the guy in the hot air balloon asking for directions from a guy in a window in the Microsoft building.

[Cow Poke]

I think part of the problem, CP, is that sometimes people in these sorts of debates (especially in religious and political debates) tend to overstate their case, and exaggerate the other side's case. What ends up happening is that the discussion then becomes about how to clear up those overstatements and exaggerations rather than the topic at hand. Sam simply has a tendency to make sure that all the ducks are in a row before moving the conversation forward because he doesn't want people to misunderstand or misrepresent his views and he wants to make sure that he doesn't misrepresent or misunderstand your views either. That's happened already a couple times here on both sides.

In the process of doing what you say Sam is doing, I think the general effect is that the conversation is often dragged down into the weeds. It appears that he's trying to force other people to think and express themselves like he does.

That simply doesn't work.

[Sam]

I'll try to keep this in mind for future interactions, should there be any.

ME --- who was it that said "how can I know what I think til I hear myself say it"..... I'm MUCH less worried about the minute details --- I like to explore how I think and why. Sometimes, I'll say something out loud, just "thinking out loud", and I'll say "boy was that dumb". Other times, I think, "wow, that's good - I should write that down".

So......

What GOOD is it for you to force a very TECHNICAL definition on "unfunded mandate" when the PRACTICAL implication is that it does the same thing as your TECHNICAL definition.

Kinda reminds me about the story of the guy in the hot air balloon asking for directions from a guy in a window in the Microsoft building.

But the practical implication isn't the same thing as the technical definition. An unfunded mandate, for instance, might make a state's deficit balloon, as the NR article you posted was talking about. It might simply make the debt go higher (e.g., Iraq War). A mandate that is paid for through private sector persons does neither of these things so the practical implication isn't the same as the technical definition.

I'm all for people talking their thoughts out ... just think of these sorts of exchanges as helping sort the wheat from the chaff — that's my goal when I talk out my thoughts, at least.

[Cow Poke]

But the practical implication isn't the same thing as the technical definition. An unfunded mandate, for instance, might make a state's deficit balloon, as the NR article you posted was talking about. It might simply make the debt go higher (e.g., Iraq War). A mandate that is paid for through private sector persons does neither of these things so the practical implication isn't the same as the technical definition.

You're doing it again.

JUST LIKE an unfunded mandate in the TECHNICAL sense would cause a burden on the entity mandated - and bad things could happen....
A mandate causing a big increase in the cost of labor on a business causes a burden on that business beyond their control.

I'm all for people talking their thoughts out ... just think of these sorts of exchanges as helping sort the wheat from the chaff — that's my goal when I talk out my thoughts, at least.

I honestly think you would look at this differently, Sam, if you were a small businessman trying to make payroll, and not lose your shirt.

[Jesse]

Papster isn't capable of admitting to error because even if you assume that a Jubilee was ever observed; what reason does one have to assume Jubilee laws would not be taken into account when you do something?

Indeed. He also seems to have a bad habit of running away from an argument once scholars are actually used. His deflections are humorous.

[Sam]

You're doing it again.

JUST LIKE an unfunded mandate in the TECHNICAL sense would cause a burden on the entity mandated - and bad things could happen....
A mandate causing a big increase in the cost of labor on a business causes a burden on that business beyond their control.

They're still not the same, though they might both have bad consequences. The difference here is important because you used a mandated wage increase being an "unfunded liability" as the reason it would be immoral. If you're saying that such an action would be immoral because it causes a burden on the entity mandated, that's a different justification. Probably not one you want to use, though, since any tax is a burden on the entity mandated.

Again, not trying to be overly pedantic here — that's just the nature of the argument that you're making and it has to work out a certain way.

I honestly think you would look at this differently, Sam, if you were a small businessman trying to make payroll, and not lose your shirt.

That might be true, though I'm not unfamiliar to the problems inherent in small business. However, I'm not proposing solutions that would disproportionately impact small businesses, either. My preferred solutions involve higher taxes on top earners, not small business owners in danger of losing their shirts. I wouldn't even object to exempting small businesses from some burdens imposed on employers — I've proposed doing so to equalize competition between small business and large businesses in retail, for example.

[Adrift]

In the process of doing what you say Sam is doing, I think the general effect is that the conversation is often dragged down into the weeds. It appears that he's trying to force other people to think and express themselves like he does.

That simply doesn't work.

Maybe. It seems to me that sometimes discussions between conservatives and liberals is just an excuse to see who can yell at each other the loudest or to see how hard they can roll their eyeballs at each other (not saying that's whats going on between you and Sam, but it does go on I think). There doesn't seem to be a real imperative to get the other side to actually come around to one's way of thinking. . A more analytical approach has a tendency to stick to facts to avoid potential strawmen, and makes sure the other side actually realizes what they're saying. It might slow discussion down, but I think it attempts to hold people accountable to their own words, and that can't be a bad thing. I think when it turns bad is when people combine the more analytical approach with condescension.