This is fairly clear - Indonesia, for example, has the death penalty for most drug-related offences, and despite this, is one of the drug capitals of the world.

You're talking about deterrence, or lack of it, which my proposal does not address. My proposal is based on simple mathematics: after the hanging, there's one more space available in prison. Of course, there's one fewer space on Boot Hill, so one could argue that my proposal merely changes the venue of the crowding.

I don't buy the argument that a reasonable minimum wage backfires because it makes things "hard for business". Australia has had a reasonable minimum wage for ages and our businesses are doing just fine, thanks very much. Prices are low enough that people on the minimum wage can afford the essentials. And working a bit harder in one business is easier than working two or more jobs.

There are some businesses to which the argument is entirely void - large, highly profitable companies that can easily afford a (relatively) small increase in their worker costs, even if they'll kick and scream all the way because it makes a tiny dent in their sacred bottom line.

(It's still not at all fun to live on the minimum wage in Australia, of course, which is where the motivation thing comes in again.)

Nope, if you're living on the poverty line you're a pretty worthless human being(to society)

The irony of YOU describing someone else as a worthless human being is papable. Before I thought you were wrong - now I know that you're a sick, bigoted sociopath.

Your fundamental problem is that your ideology caters to the lowest common denominator, and in effect brings the whole society down with it.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that if you work your ass off and dedicate yourself you can go anywhere. I've seen in time and time again, people work so damned hard for something and they achieve it.

For example, if you were running sprints on a sports team(you don't seem like the type of guy to do anything that requires motion, but bear with me) you don't stop and say, "Ok the whole team is only going to do five because the fat lard who sits at home all day can only do five." No, in fact that lowest common denominator is actually going to be able to do the 10 or 20 because he doesn't get off easy.

I work hard and I see people who work hard and we all get the same feeling of revulsion when someone who doesn't work hard gets the same stuff as us.

That's not being a sociopath dickwad, it's being a reasonable human being.

Also I take huge offense to the fact that you called me a bigot, I have not said a single thing that is bigoted.
(Oh yeah, don't give me the shit about how not everyone has all these opportunities, my father came from one of the places you talk about(but have never actually been to), and he made the opportunities for himself)

To get away from (In your case, much deserved) ad hominem attacks and into an actual reason why you're horribly, terribly wrong:

Fine, but I disagree on one point. College should be a privilege, we already have overcrowding. Besides the fact that with your short sighted system you're going to be flooding the economy with degrees, therefore ruining it. There is a reason that Medical programs(that have a huge demand) fail nearly 90% of their students.

No, it shouldn't be a privilege. It should be something that anyone who can make the cut should be able to get into. I'm not saying that everybody should be offered tertiary education - I'm saying everyone that wants to get into tertiary education and puts the requisite effort in should be able to do so. You shouldn't have to go to the right school. You shouldn't need to pay lots of money. You shouldn't need to pay any money, really.

Overcrowding? That's why you fund tertiary education more. As for 'flooding the economy', Australia had free tertiary education at some point. Guess what? Nothing was ruined! There's only so many people that have the ability and the put in enough effort to get a degree. But those people should be able to get one, no matter what social class they come from.

Furthermore, far less then 90% of people doing medicine fail. And I'm not saying that we should somehow not fail people. I'm just saying that tertiary education should be possible for everyone regardless of their level of wealth, rather then being far easier to get into if you have money, which is how it currently works.

Nope, if you're living on the poverty line you're a pretty worthless human being(to society) and I'm not paying for your cough medication. Sixteen year old kids working at a burger joint near me make more than the people you're talking about.

This is the horrible, sick, twisted, disturbed section of your post. Honestly, what the hell? The instant you assign a worth to humans, you jump off the deep end. You lose any ability to make any sort of comment about morality. I mean, this is a major Godwin's Law moment.

They are working. They are doing a job. Is that not a contribution to society? Do you really care that much that you're going to lose an extra cent or two from your paycheck in order to keep someone alive? Someone who isn't necessarily at fault for being in the position they are in? Feel that Christian love!

They don't have money, so they're not worth anything. That's honestly a disgusting philosophy. What, should they be unable to vote, too? I mean, they're not worth anything to society, why should society give a damn what they think? And they're clearly stupid. I mean, this guy over here is functionally illiterate! Never mind that's the result of a poor education system that discriminates against the poor and the effects of the poverty spiral, they're clearly born dumb and will stay that way. We need only worthwhile people voting in this society. That means anyone who owns land. That quite clearly indicates that they're contributing. These land-less people should probably be taken care of. So the guys that own land can work them on stuff, and give them room and board in return. What a deal!

You'd be right at home in the Dark Ages. Aristocracy is pretty much dead against the ideals of a modern democratic society.

There is a reason that in the US after being laid off, 90% of workers find a new job in the next 3-4 years, while in Europe(which has stricter policies) only 40% of workers find a new job.

Ah, but 70% of statistics are made up! Like that one.

And just saying "Has a job, has no job" means pretty much nothing. Is the job full-time, part-time, casual? How much money are they making? Do they get leave?

A similar situation is occurring in Australia right now. The Prime Minister bangs on about how he's creating jobs, but in reality, he's not doing anything. Unemployment has 'fallen', because they've changed the criteria for unemployment. Never mind that most of the people counted as 'employed' under those statistics are, in reality, drifiting from crappy casual job to crappy casual job, barely keeping their heads above water - they're employed, right?

Basically, the guy getting jobs in America is probably living at the same standard as the poor European bastard who can't get a job.

No one in the history of the world has been able to hit this "Effective Welfare" line you speak of. It's an idealist philosophy, it always ends up with people either sucking money out of the system or starving.

Really? Because I know a fair few countries with quite good welfare systems. You could start with places like Sweden, which has an extremely healthy, wealthy, happy, and educated populace, on the whole. It's a lovely country.

Welfare 'sucks out' money? How much does crime cost? How much does having an uneducated populace cost?

Your fundamental problem is that your ideology caters to the lowest common denominator, and in effect brings the whole society down with it.

No, it doesn't. It gives the poor bastard that's the lowest of the low a chance to do things. It smooths out society - you get less obscenely rich people, yes, but you get far more members of the middle class. The general result is that the average level of wealth in that society goes up. Once again, compare Australia or Sweden to America.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that if you work your ass off and dedicate yourself you can go anywhere. I've seen in time and time again, people work so damned hard for something and they achieve it.

Yes, if you absolutely work your arse off, you can do most things. But under your standard free-market let-the-poor-stay-poor-while-the-rich-get-richer system, the poor have to try a helluva lot harder to get something that is easy for the rich. That's hardly fair, is it? Poor people are people, they have the same right to an education and health as any of us. They shouldn't have to struggle to get something that someone from the middle class can get fairly easily.

(you don't seem like the type of guy to do anything that requires motion, but bear with me)

Wow, an ad-hominem that isn't even remotely connected with what I'm saying. "He's a pseudo-socialist, he must be unfit!"

I'm just going to ignore your pointless, irrelevant analogy because it doesn't make any sense at all.

I work hard and I see people who work hard and we all get the same feeling of revulsion when someone who doesn't work hard gets the same stuff as us.

So I imagine you'd be on my side, what with people in the upper crust being essentially able to buy tertiary education you have to struggle for. No? Funny, that.

That's not being a sociopath dickwad, it's being a reasonable human being.

Having no social conscience and describing other humans as 'worthless' is being a sociopathic dickwad, however.

Also I take huge offense to the fact that you called me a bigot, I have not said a single thing that is bigoted.

(Oh yeah, don't give me the shit about how not everyone has all these opportunities, my father came from one of the places you talk about(but have never actually been to), and he made the opportunities for himself)

And how many people in his country couldn't 'make those opportunities' for themselves? I'm not even talking about other countries, I'm talking about the silent poor, those people who are working two or three minimum wage jobs and still barely earn enough to keep themselves and their family going. They're not working hard enough? That's insane.

As for the idea that someone "is worthless to society if they don't contribute", I suppose you're all for shooting the profoundly disabled? </Godwin>

Vandit, I wouldn't describe myself as a communist. What I described was my idea of an ideal country, and it's still capitalist, believe it or not. I quite some of the stuff involved in communism, but I don't think you need to go that far to get a fair go for people. As for 'freak ass spasms', what?

I don't really want to keep this thread going but uh, I just want to say one thing:

Worldweaver said:

Maybe you are incapable of understanding what I am saying: you are worthless to society if you are not contributing to it.

You're absolutely right. But you're missing the point of your own conclusion- if a human being is worthless because they can't work to the expectation of a society then the society itself and it's ideology is broken. A society that worships money and sees people only in terms of money is most definitely kaput.
Remember that we created money- not the other way round. The fact that now, we are such slaves to our own creation that we would see another person as 'worthless' because they don't own as many little paper slips as another person is ludicrous- but sadly it's the reality.

It's not people needs to be fixed, it's what people believe that needs to be fixed.

Was reading this on a mod site for Deus Ex:

"- It was mentioned that you can shoot at the Bob

Page hologram in the Vandenberg base and he'll jump off of the holo

projector and start running around. While I find this terribly amusing

I thought I should fix it. No more fleeing ghost-Page."



Hahaha oh man.

In summary: If you want to stop poverty, prevent people without the means of supporting children from having them. Then they only have to worry about themselves. (And that's managable, even for those working at minimum wage.)

I think there was a Modest Proposal along these lines that even explained how the poor could feed themselves!

Actually, our system favors marriage and childbirth with everything from tax benefits to entitlement increases. And a liscensing system is troubling. Who would dictate standards? And if wealth is a factor, than minoriities would be denied procreation disproportionately, as the make up a larger segment of the lower economic bands. While I find the implications of race and poverty troubling, the situation you propose is horrifying. It also runs contrary to our concept of Constitutional protections of personal liberties, including child raising, which is an area that recieves great scrutiny. Enforcement is another issue.....

WorldWeaver: While JP's attacks were unwarranted, assuming the lowest common denominator is actually pretty smart and a method followed by everyone from successful businesses to the military. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link...

I do not understand why you think that those on the bottom not only deserve it, but shouldn't be given copious opportunity to advance. Your view, as articulated, seems to be the antithesis of a meritocracy and a perfect plan for a radically division of wealth and oppression of the poor ala a South American dictatorship.

Try looking at it the other way around- do the wealthy deserve to tie up such disproportionate amounts of societal resources? Studies indicate that most wealth is inherited, not earned. So the myth of rags to riches is largely that. Even in our society (where it is actually possible) it is the exception, not the rule, despite millions of hard working people. Yet, those who inherit wealth have little or no motivation to contribute, unlike the poor who face starvation, disease, etc.

More importantly, as a society, education should be a top priority for international strength. At the same time our educational system has been in decline and the cost of higher education skyrocketed, countries like China and India have made higher education much more accessible and their level of graduation for skilled professions (such as engineers) has ballooned. Simultaneously, their economies have exploded and they have become poweful global competitors. Coincidence? Not according to many experts who feel our position is in decline.

As to the minimum wage, there are several studies that indicate the raising the MW does not correlate to higher prices or layoffs. In fact, they indicate higher economic activity as more resources are freed into the system. Remember, in a peoperly functioning system, $1 spent magnifies in multiple transactions. Most forward looking businesses should *favor* an increased MW as it puts more economic activity in the system and allows them to, potentially, secure a larger share and net gain in economic activity.

So, as a Christian who doesn't think condom use is evil - do I qualify as one of your "Bible-thumpers", and what about Bono? Last time I checked he was Christian.

Crispy wrote:

Jp wrote:

"Abstinence is the only 100% effective solution!"

Statements like this one are the main reason why I detest organised religion. They do more harm than good.

People are going to have sex regardless of how loudly you shout at them not to. It's hardwired into the human brain. At least teach them how to do it safely, instead of actively promoting the spread of HIV and other STIs. How stupid do you have to be to equate condoms with evil?!

If it wasn't for fundamentalist Christians, we'd actually have a decent chance of stamping out AIDS. Unfortunately, the actions of said Bible-thumpers have marked them as active supporters of HIV - even if they don't realise it.

Rockinawsome wrote:

So, as a Christian who doesn't think condom use is evil - do I qualify as one of your "Bible-thumpers"

I'm speaking of fundamentalist Christians (and the Catholic Church). If you're not one of them, then no, you don't. I still think you're being misled, but if you're not actually harming anyone (like they are) then that's fine. :-)

[...] a boss who doesn't feel like spending the extra money on new employees will only make life worse for everyone else by increaseing the work load proportionally.

I think Jmurph answered that one nicely.

Jmurph wrote:

As to the minimum wage, there are several studies that indicate the raising the MW does not correlate to higher prices or layoffs.

Thus implying that the workload will not increase, since layoffs do not occur as a result.

Anyway, a "good capitalist" (as you put it) will be out to work his employees optimally, not overwork them. Overworked employees are unproductive employees.