Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-08-11 18:08:01
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6770|PNW

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

~~~
Going to keep this short. So, we don't need medicine, but we need police.

...yeah.
Is this a trick question? Without medicine the average live expectancy goes down, without police we descend into anarchy.
And there's never been a point in history where there were no police and firefighters.

...yeah.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

edit:

Do you see four star generals commanding from the front lines these days? Even in the same country?
And you would like to be the unit attached to a four star general on the front lines?

No, I didn't think so.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 18:08:58)

2008-08-11 18:08:54
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Going to keep this short. So, we don't need medicine, but we need police.

...yeah.
Is this a trick question? Without medicine the average live expectancy goes down, without police we descend into anarchy.
And there's never been a point in history where there were no police and firefighters.

...yeah.
There were police and firefighters well before modern medicine.
2008-08-11 18:09:20
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6770|PNW

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Is this a trick question? Without medicine the average live expectancy goes down, without police we descend into anarchy.
And there's never been a point in history where there were no police and firefighters.

...yeah.
There were police and firefighters well before modern medicine.
There was medicine well before modern medicine.
2008-08-11 18:09:50
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


And there's never been a point in history where there were no police and firefighters.

...yeah.
There were police and firefighters well before modern medicine.
There was medicine well before modern medicine.
There were people with clubs well before police forces.
2008-08-11 18:17:24
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6498|so randum
My 2p:

The lowest paid jobs require the least training time/education/financial input - and are often the lowest (financial wise) risk occupations

The highest paid jobs require high end training (University etc), capital and can be very make or break, and often involve a lot of stress.



Prime example, my mum is currently working for the DWP (google it faggots). She earns enough (£72k), but as a consequence she has had to attain two University qualifications (one to Masters), and works stupid hours, often away from home for 3 days a week at a time.



I do think the public sector workers should be paid more, but people should also realise it is fairly easy to get such a position, and as such merits less reward.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2008-08-11 18:23:25
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6360|Vancouver

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Drakef wrote:

It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.
Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?
Seriously? You're willing to argue this point? It's basic economics that one should learn in first year university, if not in some degree in high school. It's definitely not my area of study, but it is so bloody obvious I have no idea what you could actually disagree with the theories of the economics in principle. You might want to read a book or at least Wikipedia on supply and demand at the very least, and you may understand.
2008-08-11 18:31:18
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

Drakef wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Drakef wrote:

It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.
Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?
Seriously? You're willing to argue this point? It's basic economics that one should learn in first year university, if not in some degree in high school. It's definitely not my area of study, but it is so bloody obvious I have no idea what you could actually disagree with the theories of the economics in principle. You might want to read a book or at least Wikipedia on supply and demand at the very least, and you may understand.
How about reading my post before telling me to read wikipedia hrmm?

A lot of people would like to be a CEO, that makes the expected pay lower according to your economic principles. As for the ability to be a CEO, I already said there are much less qualified people in those positions now than the ones earning shit pay as a policeman, and:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Nothing you mentioned can be learned in school. Work ethic, business sense, communication skills, all things that are natural and at best honed in school. Any person with these skills can take a shot at running a business, and have about as close a shot as anyone at success. Reading about all the failed CEOs in the paper, it sure does look like a hit or miss proposition to me.
2008-08-11 18:34:51
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6360|Vancouver

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?
Seriously? You're willing to argue this point? It's basic economics that one should learn in first year university, if not in some degree in high school. It's definitely not my area of study, but it is so bloody obvious I have no idea what you could actually disagree with the theories of the economics in principle. You might want to read a book or at least Wikipedia on supply and demand at the very least, and you may understand.
How about reading my post before telling me to read wikipedia hrmm?

A lot of people would like to be a CEO, that makes the expected pay lower according to your economic principles. As for the ability to be a CEO, I already said there are much less qualified people in those positions now than the ones earning shit pay as a policeman, and:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Nothing you mentioned can be learned in school. Work ethic, business sense, communication skills, all things that are natural and at best honed in school. Any person with these skills can take a shot at running a business, and have about as close a shot as anyone at success. Reading about all the failed CEOs in the paper, it sure does look like a hit or miss proposition to me.
I did read your post. It wasn't logical.
2008-08-11 18:38:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6649|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers, and the entire market DOES have a choice. Pay them or not, if you do not want to pay them obviously someone will. IF the taxpayer had a choice NOT to pay a teacher they and the teachers salaery dropped t othe point where it isn't worth the hassle, and this trickled down ot poor education or no education at all, which then trickled down to no job, you will eventually find teachers saleries going back up. Because the market for good teachers went up. Again not dictated by the taxpayer, but by the demand
Again, there is no choice to not pay teachers. Are you talking hypothetical or reality? Because I think you just reiterated what I have been saying. Home schooling and private schooling aren't typical boycotts because they still pay taxes at the same time .


lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers
They don't know what they are missing.
so you think teachers will stick around to teach if you drop their pay to what taxpayers want huh which is nothing? Oops then it looks like taxpayers do NOT set the pay rate does it. Only the market for their profession.

Nice joke, yet you do nothing to prove my point wrong.
2008-08-11 18:45:45
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

FatherTed wrote:

I do think the public sector workers should be paid more, but people should also realise it is fairly easy to get such a position, and as such merits less reward.
Just because a job is easy to get makes it less important? We cannot apply economic principles to jobs because they are different beasts at a basic level. When using laws of supply and demand, it is assumed that things in greater supply are less valuable because there are greater numbers, and therefore easier to get your hands on one. This does not hold true with jobs however. The importance of a job is not based on how many of those jobs are available, but to what the results of that job are.

For example, say 100 people are needed to lift a large block. Any less than that, and the block just won't budge. Then there is another job that entails lifting a block that only requires one person to lift. Are the jobs of the 100 individuals worth less because there are 100 of them? Is the job of one more valuable because there only is one?
2008-08-11 21:02:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers, and the entire market DOES have a choice. Pay them or not, if you do not want to pay them obviously someone will. IF the taxpayer had a choice NOT to pay a teacher they and the teachers salaery dropped t othe point where it isn't worth the hassle, and this trickled down ot poor education or no education at all, which then trickled down to no job, you will eventually find teachers saleries going back up. Because the market for good teachers went up. Again not dictated by the taxpayer, but by the demand
Again, there is no choice to not pay teachers. Are you talking hypothetical or reality? Because I think you just reiterated what I have been saying. Home schooling and private schooling aren't typical boycotts because they still pay taxes at the same time .


lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers
They don't know what they are missing.
so you think teachers will stick around to teach if you drop their pay to what taxpayers want huh which is nothing? Oops then it looks like taxpayers do NOT set the pay rate does it. Only the market for their profession.

Nice joke, yet you do nothing to prove my point wrong.
One reason I'd never choose to be a teacher, cop, or fireman is because I know that the people I'd be serving would be mostly self-serving individuals who would prefer to pay me nothing so that their taxes can be lower.

In short, it's a good thing taxpayers don't set the pay scale, because our system would be in shambles if they did due to a lack of foresight.  Instead, we elect people that do what they can to appease the idiot masses while taking bribes from special interest groups.
2008-08-11 21:35:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers, and the entire market DOES have a choice. Pay them or not, if you do not want to pay them obviously someone will. IF the taxpayer had a choice NOT to pay a teacher they and the teachers salaery dropped t othe point where it isn't worth the hassle, and this trickled down ot poor education or no education at all, which then trickled down to no job, you will eventually find teachers saleries going back up. Because the market for good teachers went up. Again not dictated by the taxpayer, but by the demand
Again, there is no choice to not pay teachers. Are you talking hypothetical or reality? Because I think you just reiterated what I have been saying. Home schooling and private schooling aren't typical boycotts because they still pay taxes at the same time .


lowing wrote:

I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers
They don't know what they are missing.
so you think teachers will stick around to teach if you drop their pay to what taxpayers want huh which is nothing? Oops then it looks like taxpayers do NOT set the pay rate does it. Only the market for their profession.

Nice joke, yet you do nothing to prove my point wrong.
You have no point beyond beyond making incredibly irrelevant comparisons between strippers and teachers. Not all Taxpayers want to pay nothing. Namely the ones with children . Your stripper/teacher comparison falls WAY short. With a stripper it is the actual customer and nobody else that pays for the service. With teachers everyone pays no matter if the service is used or not. Can't you see this fundamental difference? The standard free market rules do not apply when people are forced into paying for things they don't use. You do in fact have a lot of people who would be content with paying nothing for teachers. But not enough to completely kill the profession.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-11 21:56:16
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

With teachers everyone pays no matter if the service is used or not.
People going to stop having babies anytime in the near future? Something I should know about?
2008-08-11 22:13:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

With teachers everyone pays no matter if the service is used or not.
People going to stop having babies anytime in the near future? Something I should know about?
Some people never will.  Yea, you should probably know that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-11 22:15:07
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6705|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

With teachers everyone pays no matter if the service is used or not.
People going to stop having babies anytime in the near future? Something I should know about?
Some people never will.  Yea, you should probably know that.
oooooh low blow

It is beneficial to the economy to pay for education. It is cheezy, but it really is investing in our future.
2008-08-11 22:18:24
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People going to stop having babies anytime in the near future? Something I should know about?
Some people never will.  Yea, you should probably know that.
oooooh low blow

It is beneficial to the economy to pay for education. It is cheezy, but it really is investing in our future.
You know I actually agree with the underpaid thing. I'm just explaining why I think we are where we are.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-11 22:32:52
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|6233|Texas

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Some people never will.  Yea, you should probably know that.
oooooh low blow

It is beneficial to the economy to pay for education. It is cheezy, but it really is investing in our future.
You know I actually agree with the underpaid thing. I'm just explaining why I think we are where we are.
Greed. The executives control where the money goes. Naturally, most put that in their banking accounts, but you can see a shift in this trend. The owners of Google don't pay themselves; rather, they use their stock to make money. My mom works for Xerox, and she always complains about how the executives' paychecks rise while company profits decline and unemployment rises. Neither a policemen nor a teacher has access to money like a CEO. However, like is said earlier, the younger generation (us) is changing things.
2008-08-11 23:10:15
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6322|New Haven, CT

FatherTed wrote:

My 21p:
Your currency is too much win.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard