PDA

View Full Version : Lets pay politicians minimum wage



Pages : [1] 2

Üser Friendly
9th November 15, 08:29 AM
This would weed out the greedy and encourage those who wish to serve their community out of a feeling of patriotism

Often it is said that we must pay politicians well to encourage good quality candidates, but are we getting the best?

I would say no

Add to this the various expenses scandals and politicians come off as greedy selfish pricks

Is this who we want in charge?

Pie of Hate
9th November 15, 09:28 AM
http://media.giphy.com/media/cUzKuBIOZqkXC/giphy.gif

Üser Friendly
9th November 15, 10:11 AM
^ MP for Epsom and Ewell

Pie of Hate
9th November 15, 10:15 AM
^ MP for Epsom and Ewell

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/resources/images/3543372.jpg?type=article-full

Feryk
9th November 15, 10:33 AM
You would eliminate almost all of the candidates on the left of the spectrum - at least in Canada. The vast majority of our NDP candidates REALLY need the work.

Üser Friendly
9th November 15, 12:16 PM
Well if they put in the hours I'm sure it would all add up

I expect the minimum wage would be raised if my plan was implemented

Cullion
9th November 15, 01:31 PM
Raising the minimum wage for most of the current minimum wage population is not a good idea.

Cullion
9th November 15, 03:11 PM
This would weed out almost everybody except those with enough private wealth not to care and a few extremely puritanical left wing zealots

ftfy

MerkinMuffly
10th November 15, 01:54 AM
Raising the minimum wage for most of the current minimum wage population is not a good idea.
You are right, if Wal-Mart gave them more money they might be able to afford to shop somewhere else.

Üser Friendly
10th November 15, 02:49 AM
ftfy

Yes, that is the theory for paying the judiciary in Malaysia(that bastion of justice) huge salaries

And any way, have you reviewed your representatives recently. they are either rich in their own right, or idealistic friends of the rich

That is how democracy works after all

Cullion
10th November 15, 03:02 AM
You are right, if Wal-Mart gave them more money they might be able to afford to shop somewhere else.

If Wal-Mart was forced to give them more money, then it would probably have to fire a lot of them or raise it's prices (along with everybody else), thus wiping out the gains.

You employ people, so I demand you double all their wages right now.

MerkinMuffly
10th November 15, 03:11 AM
If Wal-Mart was forced to give them more money, then it would probably have to fire a lot of them or raise it's prices (along with everybody else), thus wiping out the gains.

You employ people, so I demand you double all their wages right now.
LOL. Wal-mart's profit margin is around 25%

vAcaeLmybCY

I pay non-skilled temp workers about twice minimum wage.

Cullion
10th November 15, 03:17 AM
LOL. Wal-mart's profit margin is around 25%

Are you suggesting that private companies shouldn't be returning a profit? 25% is only large by supermarket standards. It's weak by the standards of a lot of industries. Millions of retirees depending on Walmart turning a profit.



I pay non-skilled temp workers about twice minimum wage.

I don't care, double it again.

MerkinMuffly
10th November 15, 03:32 AM
Are you suggesting that private companies shouldn't be returning a profit? 25% is only large by supermarket standards. It's weak by the standards of a lot of industries. Millions of retirees depending on Walmart turning a profit.
Tell it to the 70 year old woman who works at Walmart who can't afford to retire unless she eats dog food and lives in a cardboard box under a bridge.





I don't care, double it again.
You are losing your edge.

Üser Friendly
10th November 15, 08:03 AM
@Cullion

what do think the minimum wage should be, or should the market decide?

How much should reps in the national assembly get paid?

You can answer as well NoB

MerkinMuffly
10th November 15, 12:12 PM
When you pay someone shit wages they do a shitty job an will be unreliable for the most part. Politicians should get compensated on how closely they live up to their campaign promises.

Üser Friendly
10th November 15, 03:35 PM
What about paying them the average wage?

For instance TDs (Irish MPs) get €87,258

50% of individuals have a gross annual income of less than €18,000. On average individuals in the Republic of Ireland have an annual gross income of €26,800.

Cullion
10th November 15, 04:31 PM
Tell it to the 70 year old woman who works at Walmart who can't afford to retire unless she eats dog food and lives in a cardboard box under a bridge.

And now you want her fired by pricing her out of the market ?



You are losing your edge.

Why don't you hire the old lady ?

Cullion
10th November 15, 04:33 PM
What about paying them the average wage?

The average wage is low because a large swathe of the population basically don't know how to do anything genuinely useful so that substantial public policy effort is devoted to creating bullshit jobs to keep them busy.

Presumably you'd like your elected representatives to be smarter than that ?

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 01:26 AM
The average wage is low because a large swathe of the population basically don't know how to do anything genuinely useful so that substantial public policy effort is devoted to creating bullshit jobs to keep them busy.

£21,000 p/a is low? How much do you earn?


Presumably you'd like your elected representatives to be smarter than that ?

I'd definitely like my elected reps to be smart,but unfortunately the current system of selection does not select for intelligence

You still haven't said what you think MPs should earn

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 01:39 AM
And now you want her fired by pricing her out of the market ?

I have a feeling you'd fire an old lady if it could make you appear correct.
vAcaeLmybCY





Why don't you hire the old lady ? Tits aren't big enough.

Cullion
11th November 15, 03:29 AM
There is no level of clumsy re-branded marxism that you won't fall for.

Tell me, what is the 'living wage', exactly ?

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 04:49 AM
Ask Henry Ford.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 05:19 AM
Costco was the first company to grow from zero to $3 billion in sales in under six years. For the fiscal year ending on August 31, 2012, the company's sales totaled $97.062 billion, with $1.709 billion net profit.

At Costco, hourly workers make an average of more than $20 an hour — well above the national average of $11.39 for a retail sales worker — according to a 2013 Businessweek story (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/123856-costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world). For employees who put in 40 hours per week, that works out to about $43,000 a year.

88% of Costco's 185,000 employees have company-sponsored healthcare.

And Costco stock just keeps going up.

See Cullion? you don't have to be a money grubbing POS with a bitter contempt for the working class.

And LOL @ "Marxism"

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th November 15, 09:15 AM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12239723_873370822790962_3566984936207204917_n.jpg ?oh=d1b4703f385d6a0e9f8c39ea278df1b0&oe=56BBDA7E

Pie of Hate
11th November 15, 10:56 AM
http://i39.tinypic.com/344fcyu.gif

NoBowie
11th November 15, 12:14 PM
Blah. Blah. Anecdotal evidence.

Gee, I love anecdotal evidence. Let me vomit some too:

Walmart is the most successful retailer in history (http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-walmart-most-successful-retailer-history).

Walmart's average pay is $12.94 an hour (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/), just slightly above the national average for a retail worker.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 01:35 PM
In 2013 (http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/walmart-on-tax-day/), the Walton family received $8 billion in tax breaks, $6.2 billion of which came from federal taxpayer subsidies handed to them because employee wages are so low.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 01:37 PM
BTW, you might you might want to look up the difference between factual and anecdotal.

NoBowie
11th November 15, 01:44 PM
BTW, you might you might want to look up the difference between factual and anecdotal.

Anecdotal has nothing to do with fact or fiction. It is using one story, a very small and statistically insignificant example, to try to prove a point:

"Anecdotal evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence) is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases."

BTW, just google 'Costco tax breaks' if you think their success is based only on their own merits and karma.

I hope your favorite hippie eating establishment triples wages and prices you out of your favorite sandwich.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 01:52 PM
Like I said learn the difference between a list of facts and a story.
Way to miss the point about the difference between the way Walmart and Costco treats their employees.

NoBowie
11th November 15, 01:56 PM
Way to miss the point about the difference between the way Walmart and Costco treats their employees.

I don't care.

You are not forced to work in the U.S. unless you are in prison.

Folks at both places chose to work there.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 02:01 PM
Your understanding of the way Walmart operates is like that of a child.

NoBowie
11th November 15, 02:04 PM
Your understanding of the way Walmart operates is like that of a successful business man whereas my understanding comes from the standpoint of a whiny emotional bitch.

Yup.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th November 15, 02:08 PM
You're not a successful business man Nob, you're a middle manager for a successful business man.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 02:13 PM
Nob produces nothing of real value. He just sits in his cubicle and alternates between complaining about how the poor are destroying America and surfing for internet porn.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th November 15, 02:17 PM
...and adjusting his butt plug.

Cullion
11th November 15, 03:00 PM
Costco was the first company to grow from zero to $3 billion in sales in under six years. For the fiscal year ending on August 31, 2012, the company's sales totaled $97.062 billion, with $1.709 billion net profit.

At Costco, hourly workers make an average of more than $20 an hour — well above the national average of $11.39 for a retail sales worker — according to a 2013 Businessweek story (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/123856-costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world). For employees who put in 40 hours per week, that works out to about $43,000 a year.

88% of Costco's 185,000 employees have company-sponsored healthcare.

And Costco stock just keeps going up.

See Cullion? you don't have to be a money grubbing POS with a bitter contempt for the working class.

And LOL @ "Marxism"

So double your employee's wages. There's no reason why that should harm your business. You'd only be doing good.

Oh, I forgot, you don't really mean the things you say.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:07 PM
I pay twice what other contractors pay, but please, continue as your absurdity is keeping me quite entertained.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 03:11 PM
@Cullion

what do think the minimum wage should be, or should the market decide?

How much should reps in the national assembly get paid?

You can answer as well NoB

I get the impression that you don't want to answer my question Cullion and NoB

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:25 PM
Grinch and Scrooge aren't about to offer any solutions beyond shitting on the poor and nuzzling the perfumed testicles of the 1%.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 03:27 PM
I have faith

Cullion
11th November 15, 03:28 PM
I get the impression that you don't want to answer my question Cullion and NoB

I think there should be no minimum wage. I think members of parliament should be paid to put them in the top 5% of salaried employees with accomodation in the capital provided in govt. owned apartments (but the housing allowances revoked).

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:31 PM
Grinch and Scrooge ardent about to offer any solutions beyond shitting on the poor and nuzzling the perfumed testicles of the 1%.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 03:31 PM
I think members of parliament should be paid to put them in the top 5% of salaried employees with accomodation in the capital provided in govt. owned apartments (but the housing allowances revoked).

Value for money...
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2014/11/10696262_882355151804959_3364114252718306151_n.jpg

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:32 PM
Wait, make that the top 5%.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:34 PM
And Doofa wins the thread.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 03:36 PM
You've made me blush

Cullion
11th November 15, 03:38 PM
I understand the problem, but hair-shirt puritanism with their wages won't help. It will just mean that our parliament returns to being run entirely by the monied gentry and a few puritanical masochists.

It would be better (and almost certainly cheaper) to just control the expenses issue by replacing the flexible, opaque system they have now with a family-sized apartment in a government-owned building and a 'top 5%' salary. That still allows them to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without suffering any hardship when their constituency is 500 miles away so they're forced to find London accomodation during the week.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 03:44 PM
Perhaps an hourly rate (time spent in the chamber) would be easier to police

Cullion
11th November 15, 03:46 PM
The thing is, their useful work doesn't consist purely of debating and voting. It's actually a good thing if they spend a decent amount of time learning about the world outside, you know ? It's just a question of stopping their personal financial interests from getting blurred with that.

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 03:58 PM
I'm sure croquet teaches one a great deal about humanity.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th November 15, 04:04 PM
I understand the problem, but hair-shirt puritanism with their wages won't help. It will just mean that our parliament returns to being run entirely by the monied gentry and a few puritanical masochists.


Is nt that pretty much the story now?

Cullion
11th November 15, 04:37 PM
Is nt that pretty much the story now?

It would get worse

NoBowie
11th November 15, 04:41 PM
I'm sure croquet teaches one a great deal about humanity.

No. You mean polo.

Üser Friendly
11th November 15, 06:40 PM
Poor politicians, getting a poultry £74,000

How do they cope?

MerkinMuffly
11th November 15, 09:13 PM
No. You mean polo.



http://s4.thcdn.com/productimg/0/600/600/38/10610538-1336745730-227592.jpg

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 02:52 AM
LOL @ your invective

You say hair-shirt puritanism, I say wage restraint


I understand the problem, but hair-shirt puritanism with their wages won't help. It will just mean that our parliament returns to being run entirely by the monied gentry and a few puritanical masochists.

Now apply this logic to nurses and see how silly it sounds

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 06:34 AM
Having given your point some thought, Cullion, I'm calling logical fallacy on your "Lords or Loonies" hypothesis

I don't believe the levels of pay would have a significant affect on the character of those who seek election

After all it is the Party, and ultimately the electorate that are making the decision

If your theory was true, the Assembly would become progressively more and more middle class and moderate with each successive pay increase that is voted for

Sure, the rich and the radical would be attracted to power in a low pay environment, but they are now, and there is nothing to suggest that moderate people with moderate incomes would not either

Unless you have figures...

However, for arguments sake let us assume that the "Lords and Loonies" hypothesis is viable

I have formulated a mechanism to correct for it

No more pay, but a means tested grant on a sliding scale

This grant would bring the poorer Assembly Representative's (AR) income up to an average wage level

The very wealth would have to pay for the privilege of being an AR, again on a means tested sliding scale

Thus the playing field would be leveled

Pie of Hate
12th November 15, 06:44 AM
I believe that would cause trouble in the ranks. You do know what happens when the rich pay for things, don't you? Bought and paid for commissions anyone?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th November 15, 07:39 AM
Yes please (ur paying right?)

Pie of Hate
12th November 15, 07:44 AM
Yes please (ur paying right?)

Just sold out. Unless you have a government issued coupon?

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 07:55 AM
I believe that would cause trouble in the ranks. You do know what happens when the rich pay for things, don't you? Bought and paid for commissions anyone?

Think of it as a penalty payment

For being too rich

Or income tax. Rich folk don't get preferential treatment (officially) when it comes to gvt provided services just because they pay more in taxes

Pie of Hate
12th November 15, 09:25 AM
You'd be happy to have people in charge with no other qualifier other than "They can afford it"?

Cullion
12th November 15, 09:50 AM
LOL @ your invective

You say hair-shirt puritanism, I say wage restraint

Now apply this logic to nurses and see how silly it sounds

I want people smarter than the average nurse running the country. The wages I've proposed are low for the calibre of people I want.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th November 15, 10:13 AM
I want people smarter than the average nurse running the country. The wages I've proposed are low for the calibre of people I want.

Do you know a lot of average nurses?

Pie of Hate
12th November 15, 10:50 AM
Do you know a lot of average nurses?

I've seen a few on the internet...

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 11:20 AM
You'd be happy to have people in charge with no other qualifier other than "They can afford it"?

You mean like David Cameron?

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 11:27 AM
I want people smarter than the average nurse running the country. The wages I've proposed are low for the calibre of people I want.

That's a pretty dismissive attitude towards a profession that requires a degree

Reflect upon it next time you have an accident and lay in pain in the A&E

But what is this myth that you are peddling that high wages attracts good politicians

It is flawed because the entry requirements are how well they can convince people to vote for them

i.e. they haven't be caught snorting coke of a prostitutes tits

not how well they can run a health service

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th November 15, 12:04 PM
It is flawed because the entry requirements are how well they can convince people to vote for them

i.e. they haven't be caught snorting coke of a prostitutes tits



If they are really good they can still get elected even when people know they have snorted coke off a pro's tits!

Pie of Hate
12th November 15, 01:02 PM
caught snorting coke of a prostitutes tits



That's exactly the sort of politician I'd vote for.

NoBowie
12th November 15, 01:15 PM
But what is this myth that you are peddling that high wages attracts good politicians

First of all, you should phrase it 'high wages can attract BETTER politicians'

This is not a myth, it is true.

Higher wages attracting better talent is proven time and time again all over the globe in all kinds of professions. It is the rule, not the exception. Higher wages can also convince talent to move from one profession to another. If I am a smart / charismatic person and there is a huge wage disparity between people facing professions I will likely seek the better paying one.

The difference in politics as a profession is power. If we make everything money related for analysis, power is adding some dollar value onto the wage based on the person who is seeking the position. Maybe the power is worth 20k a year to the person, maybe not.

If you reduce the wage to lower middle class levels, you would probably have to make the position compulsory versus voluntary, otherwise you will just get the type of folks Cullion described, the wealthy and far left crazies. Candidates are nominated, if you are elected, whether you want to or not, you are serving. Note that this is different than random folks being forced into the position.

This way, Bill Gates could be forced to be president. Or Oprah. Or Taylor Swift. Or Howard Stern. They wouldn't have a choice.

MerkinMuffly
12th November 15, 01:16 PM
caught snorting coke of a prostitutes tits

I didn't even know that coke could be manufactured from hookertits.

Üser Friendly
12th November 15, 01:22 PM
First of all, you should phrase it 'high wages can attract BETTER politicians'

This is not a myth, it is true.

Higher wages attracting better talent is proven time and time again all over the globe in all kinds of professions. It is the rule, not the exception. Higher wages can also convince talent to move from one profession to another. If I am a smart / charismatic person and there is a huge wage disparity between people facing professions I will likely seek the better paying one.

The difference in politics as a profession is power. If we make everything money related for analysis, power is adding some dollar value onto the wage based on the person who is seeking the position. Maybe the power is worth 20k a year to the person, maybe not.

If you reduce the wage to lower middle class levels, you would probably have to make the position compulsory versus voluntary, otherwise you will just get the type of folks Cullion described, the wealthy and far left crazies. Candidates are nominated, if you are elected, whether you want to or not, you are serving. Note that this is different than random folks being forced into the position.

This way, Bill Gates could be forced to be president. Or Oprah. Or Taylor Swift. Or Howard Stern. They wouldn't have a choice.

Anecdotal evidence NoB?

tut tut

unless you have some figures...

also RANDOMOCRACY NOW!

MerkinMuffly
12th November 15, 01:34 PM
NoB uses Aynrandocracy now.

Cullion
12th November 15, 05:22 PM
That's a pretty dismissive attitude towards a profession that requires a degree

It only requires a degree in nursing, spazz. Nursing standards have gone down since the union-academia-marxist complex turned an honest manual & caring trade into a certificated pseudo-profession. You can get degrees in hotel management & tourism now. It means nothing.



Reflect upon it next time you have an accident and lay in pain in the A&E

There is nothing the nurse would do to help that which requires sophisticated abstract thinking.



But what is this myth that you are peddling that high wages attracts good politicians

Not necessarily, but crappy wages would certainly lose a lot of good politicians.



It is flawed because the entry requirements are how well they can convince people to vote for them

i.e. they haven't be caught snorting coke of a prostitutes tits

not how well they can run a health service

Your argument boils down to: I don't really believe in representative democracy, but I can't think of a way of getting rid of it so it might as well be cheap.

Hmm. maybe. But I think you underestimate the damage that well-meaning, hard-working morons can do if you let them loose with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Better to keep them occupied with, oh, Judo... Or growing vegetables.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 01:26 AM
Not necessarily, but crappy wages would certainly lose a lot of good politicians.

This is the nub of our disagreement, that is, what constitutes a good politician

If a politician quits just because the rate of re-disbursement is low ,that person doe not qualify as 'good'

Politics should be about service to ones community, not getting on the gravy train and telling any measure of bullshit to stay there



Your argument boils down to: I don't really believe in representative democracy, but I can't think of a way of getting rid of it so it might as well be cheap.

More like, I can see the current system of party politics does not work and big salaries does not attract able politicians, only greedy ones


Hmm. maybe. But I think you underestimate the damage that well-meaning, hard-working morons can do if you let them loose with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Like Iraq 2 you mean?


Better to keep them occupied with, oh, Judo... Or growing vegetables.

Judo winz...again?

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 01:47 AM
It only requires a degree in nursing, spazz. Nursing standards have gone down since the union-academia-marxist complex turned an honest manual & caring trade into a certificated pseudo-profession. You can get degrees in hotel management & tourism now. It means nothing.


What is your degree in?


There is nothing the nurse would do to help that which requires sophisticated abstract thinking.

There is nothing a Dr would do that is any different

I suppose you consider Dr's to be a pseudo-profession as well

Cullion
13th November 15, 03:12 AM
What is your degree in?

One in engineering one in computer science.



There is nothing a Dr would do that is any different

I suppose you consider Dr's to be a pseudo-profession as well

A doctor could prescribe a drug regime based on a detailed diagnosis and examination of lab results, or possibly perform complex surgery.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 03:46 AM
One in engineering one in computer science.

Meh

Bluffers qualifications, just look at Dr Max




A doctor could prescribe a drug regime based on a detailed diagnosis and examination of lab results, or possibly perform complex surgery.

Nurses, as well as pharmacists are qualified to diagnose and prescribe medication

Only specialist Dr's can perform complex surgery, after extensive study, practice and professional development, not your average GP

Cullion
13th November 15, 03:58 AM
Meh

Bluffers qualifications, just look at Dr Max

You miss the point. I don't think degrees entitle you to any particular level of income. They're just certificates. Some of the wealthiest and most intelligent self-made people I know don't have degrees. That's why I don't think pointing out that the recent invention of nursing degrees entitles nurses to be paid the same as one of the few hundred people elected to run a major first world economy armed with nuclear weapons.




Nurses, as well as pharmacists are qualified to diagnose and prescribe medication

In the UK there's a newish thing called a 'nurse practitioner' that can, up to a point. But they're not generally qualified to do so, and there are limits on the treatment they can prescribe.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th November 15, 05:17 AM
It only requires a degree in nursing, spazz. Nursing standards have gone down since the union-academia-marxist complex turned an honest manual & caring trade into a certificated pseudo-profession.

You have some sort of metric for that statement?

From my experience I would say the standard of care has actually increased as better models for health care have been examined & understood by Nurses. Things have changed radically from the end of the 80 to the present day. The main one that springs to my mind is hospitals not being run like some sort of quasi-military baracks & become more patient centred.



You can get degrees in hotel management & tourism now. It means nothing.

Fallacious comparison. The Nursing degree is pretty tough & made more so due to the fact that most Nurses who undertake it (btw Doof you dont need a degree to be a Nurse) do so whilst working a very taxing full time job.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 06:25 AM
You miss the point. I don't think degrees entitle you to any particular level of income. They're just certificates. Some of the wealthiest and most intelligent self-made people I know don't have degrees. That's why I don't think pointing out that the recent invention of nursing degrees entitles nurses to be paid the same as one of the few hundred people elected to run a major first world economy armed with nuclear weapons.

Nice try at a strawman, but this is the point you are avoiding...


I want people smarter than the average nurse running the country.

So if you are not gauging the candidate's intelligent by level of education, how are you going to judge potential candidates for your vote and fat pay check?





In the UK there's a newish thing called a 'nurse practitioner' that can, up to a point. But they're not generally qualified to do so, and there are limits on the treatment they can prescribe.

So you hold GP's in disdain by not Neurosurgeons

Fair enough

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 06:34 AM
Two engineers, in their white safety helmets and hi-vis vests, were both looking up at the top of a flag pole, intently discussing some problem, whilst scribbling periodically on their chip boards

A passing farmer asked them what they were doing

"We are attempting to calculate the height of this flag pole my good man" Said the first engineer

"Why don't you lower the pole and measure it?" The farmer suggested

The two engineers glanced at each other and rolled their eyes, smirking

In his most patronizing tone the second engineer replied "Because then, my dear fellow, we would know the length, and we want to know the height"

Cullion
13th November 15, 06:37 AM
You have some sort of metric for that statement?

From my experience I would say the standard of care has actually increased as better models for health care have been examined & understood by Nurses. Things have changed radically from the end of the 80 to the present day. The main one that springs to my mind is hospitals not being run like some sort of quasi-military baracks & become more patient centred.

Hospitals are dirtier and nurses are more likely to ignore patients whilst chatting at the nurse station these days.



The Nursing degree is pretty tough

No it isn't.

Cullion
13th November 15, 06:40 AM
So if you are not gauging the candidate's intelligent by level of education, how are you going to judge potential candidates for your vote and fat pay check?

How about listening to their opinions and arguments about a range of issues and then deciding whether they strike you as intelligent, well considered arguments ?

Has that really not occurred to you before?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th November 15, 06:54 AM
Hospitals are dirtier and nurses are more likely to ignore patients whilst chatting at the nurse station these days.

Straight outta the Daily Fail LOL... Kitty's right, you are losing your edge.



No it isn't.

& your proof is?

Pie of Hate
13th November 15, 07:12 AM
& your proof is?

He already has the full set and 4/12 of the special editions.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 07:58 AM
How about listening to their opinions and arguments about a range of issues and then deciding whether they strike you as intelligent, well considered arguments ?

Has that really not occurred to you before?

For a cynic you are quite naive

All you are getting is someone who can memorize the party line and kiss babies

Perhaps you should try talking to more nurses, despite your obvious bad experiences, before dismissing them all as less intelligent than MP's

Pie of Hate
13th November 15, 08:00 AM
Qualifications and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 08:08 AM
Qualifications and intelligence aren't the same thing.

True, but they are a measure of a persons ability to apply their intelligence

Cullion
13th November 15, 08:16 AM
Straight outta the Daily Fail LOL...

It's in the newspapers because it's true. What's your proof that it isn't ?



& your proof is?

I dated a semi-retarded nurse back in the 90s who had one.

The A-level entry requirements are very low.

Cullion
13th November 15, 08:18 AM
For a cynic you are quite naive

All you are getting is someone who can memorize the party line and kiss babies

That's all you're getting. I extract much more useful information when I listen to an MP's political and economic arguments because I understand everything they say and can see the flaws immediately. That's why my vote should be worth more than yours.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 08:38 AM
What is the current Cullion to doofa vote ratio?

When was the last time you conversed with a politician as a perspective representative?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th November 15, 09:04 AM
It's in the newspapers because it's true. What's your proof that it isn't ?

That's a weak troll I'd come to expect better from you.




I dated a semi-retarded nurse back in the 90s who had one.

The A-level entry requirements are very low.

So you once shagged a Nurse & that makes you an expert?

You have more in common with Doofa than you know.

Cullion
13th November 15, 10:06 AM
What is the current Cullion to doofa vote ratio?

It floats like a currency or a stock price, but it's about 3:1 at the moment.



When was the last time you conversed with a politician as a perspective representative?

I talk to politicians all the time.

NoBowie
13th November 15, 10:07 AM
Goddamn. I am glad the invisible hand is in control of wages (mostly) and not you idiots. (doof, fauxtor, reesette)

Cullion
13th November 15, 10:07 AM
That's a weak troll I'd come to expect better from you.

It's not a troll.


So you once shagged a Nurse & that makes you an expert?


Yes. Look, most nurses are decent people but they're just not, as a group, as bright as the kind of people I'd vote for.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 02:40 PM
It floats like a currency or a stock price, but it's about 3:1 at the moment.

I'm happy with that


I talk to politicians all the time.

What do you talk about?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th November 15, 02:48 PM
It's not a troll.

Well lets have the proof then, As even a cursory Google doesnt back up your opinion. (http://www.hscic.gov.uk/article/5003/One-in-six-hospital-sites-score-100-per-cent-on-cleanliness-in-patient-led-assessments)


Yes. Look, most nurses are decent people but they're just not, as a group, as bright as the kind of people I'd vote for.

You dated a nutter who happened to be a Nurse & have based your generalization on that bad experience... geee that's real comprehensive for a sweeping statement.

Üser Friendly
13th November 15, 02:51 PM
So i was wondering why Cullion was so anti-nurse...


I only went in to get my blood pressure taken. It's pretty stressful at the upper echelons of corporate life. But when she walked into the room I knew I was going to get more than I bargained for
"Woi have you still got your pants on?" Her Irish brogue at once familiar and comforting and yet so alien and menacing

"I, ah, but..." I stumbled, but she was having none of it

"Well take dem off, ya little shite hawke"

I complied, I'm not sure why. I felt compelled

"face da wall bend over and pray to Mary" she ordered as she snapped on the latex gloves

"B-but I'm allergic to latex" I stammered

"You'll take what's cummin' to ya, ya little bollix

As she entered me I cried

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th November 15, 02:53 PM
Goddamn. I am glad the invisible hand is in control of wages (mostly) and not you idiots. (doof, fauxtor, reesette)


I havent expressed an opinion about the minimum wage yet.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 03:02 PM
Goddamn. I am glad the invisible hand is fisting me in the ass with corporate welfare for slave wage multinationals. I just love sucking the dick of higher taxes.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 03:05 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1e/d9/95/1ed99500befdbafd7f7f75aaf17da5b9.jpg

NoBowie
13th November 15, 03:12 PM
First of all, bullshit numbers, but...even if this were true:

$4000 for subsidies of corporations like the one you are likely working for. Sounds fine to me. $4000 a year keeps me in a $50k a year job. Bargain!

You know what? I contribute to the PAC my company is on.

http://i.imgur.com/GCFQkqo.gif

Cullion
13th November 15, 03:13 PM
"$4000 per year for corporate subsidies"

That would be the special delusional mathematics that socialists use where they make up a much higher figure that they think corporations 'deserve' to pay, and then claim any amount they pay below that is a subsidy from other taxpayers.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 03:18 PM
I won't comment on Reese's actual point because I have no retort to his objection of subsidizing billionaires.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 03:22 PM
$4000 for subsidies of corporations like the ones you've never worked for? Yes. Corporate welfare. Take it take it deep.

Cullion
13th November 15, 07:53 PM
You still haven't clarified whether you plan to double your staff wages, Kitty.

It would be a great way to test your theories about economics. Totally a case of putting your money where your mouth is. If you're right you'll make a fortune with that move.

You could really shut me up here. All it takes is just a little courage. A little faith.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 08:29 PM
I did double my wages for the same reasons Henry Ford doubled his.

Cullion
13th November 15, 08:33 PM
Then double them again and get richer.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 09:01 PM
My goal is not to get rich at the expense of others, nor is communism.
Do you know why Henry Ford doubled his employees wages?
It doesn't sound like you do.

MerkinMuffly
13th November 15, 09:17 PM
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/Ford-ad-1913.jpg
1953 Saturday Evening Post article sponsored by Ford Motor Company. The photo caption reads: “When a wartime soviet mission visited the vast Rouge plant, one of the visiting Commissars looked at the enormous parking lot and sneered: ‘Ah! The capitalist bosses’ cars!’ No one could convince him that this great sea of automobiles belonged to the 60,000 Ford workers of the Rouge.”

Cullion
13th November 15, 09:19 PM
My goal is not to get rich at the expense of others, nor is communism.
Do you know why Henry Ford doubled his employees wages?
It doesn't sound like you do.

It sounds like you're all talk and no action because deep down you know you're full of shit.

Double your staff wages again.

Üser Friendly
14th November 15, 02:42 AM
I havent expressed an opinion about the minimum wage yet.

exactly!

Sitting on the fence, you commie bastad

MerkinMuffly
14th November 15, 03:18 AM
Double your staff wages again.

Why?

Cullion
14th November 15, 05:12 AM
Why?

To get richer and to be more moral, according to your own theory.

MerkinMuffly
14th November 15, 04:48 PM
You still didn't read up on why Henry Ford raised wages, obviously.
You probably should avoid running a business till you know at least the basics about it.

Cullion
14th November 15, 04:55 PM
I understand what Ford did very well: he raised his worker's wages so that he could reduce his staff turnover (which was also expensive).
(The idea that he thought paying his workers enough to buy the product he was paying them to make would somehow be more profitable is obvious mathematical nonsense).
Here's the critical thing you don't seem to understand; reducing staff turnover with high wages only works when you pay more than your competitors. You can't achieve the same effect by raising everybody's wages with a law.

Henry Ford was also a massive, massive anti-semite who ran a self-published newspaper called the Dearborn Independent, which ran all kinds of antisemitic stories that would've been perfectly at home in der sturmer. You should be careful latching onto ideas just because Ford espoused them.

Especially when you don't fully understand them.

MerkinMuffly
14th November 15, 05:08 PM
It wasn't just about staff turnover.
His workers being able to afford cars was just a byproduct of his raising wages.
He doubled wages and the company's profits went up.
I think you are the one who still doesn't know why that is.

Cullion
14th November 15, 05:46 PM
He doubled wages and it massively reduced staff turnover (because those people couldn't earn the same money anywhere else, this is the critical point you need to remember). The productivity cost associated with the staff turnover was larger than the wage hike.

The fact that this only works as a competitive advantage is why you can't use it as a minimum wage argument (once everybody is forced to pay the same by law, then there's no competitive advantage).

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:21 AM
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-perspective/ford-doubles-minimum-wage.html

Cullion
15th November 15, 08:04 AM
"One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers"

This is nonsensical voodoo economics, but if you believe that, then double your staff wages again.

The thing is Reese, you're full of shit. You can post as many links as you want, but until you follow through by putting your money where your mouth is, then you're just flapping your gums whilst refusing to put these idiotic ideas into practice, because there's a sane core to you which knows you'd close your business down if you followed through.

You can't avoid this reality by talking more, and you definitely can't convince anybody around you.

Put up, or shut up.

Üser Friendly
15th November 15, 11:48 AM
Can you provide figures to support your own position Cullion

You know, if you half wages you'll double profits or something

NoBowie
15th November 15, 12:25 PM
Can you provide figures to support your own position Cullion

You know, if you half wages you'll double profits or something

That's not his proposal, idiot.

The market has determined the best wages already.

Syntactical Disruptorize
15th November 15, 12:32 PM
In Texas, we paid legislators $7,200/year, which wouldn't cover rent on an efficiency apartment in Austin. The result was the biggest pack of bought-out sons of bitches you ever saw. They were neither independently wealthy nor idealists; they were money-grubbing bottom-feeders with an eye for the main chance.

Older Americans may recall the "Egg McBentsen" (http://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/18/Records-show-Bentsen-wealthy-Quayle-will-be/9754587880000/). Lloyd Bentsen developed his habits in Texas, although not as a member of the state legislature. That's what your proposal will bring about, Doofa. It may be no worse than what we have, but it sure as hell isn't better.

Üser Friendly
15th November 15, 12:34 PM
Shadap!

Not you Cy

NoBski

Üser Friendly
15th November 15, 12:37 PM
In Texas, we paid legislators $7,200/year, which wouldn't cover rent on an efficiency apartment in Austin. The result was the biggest pack of bought-out sons of bitches you ever saw. They were neither independently wealthy nor idealists; they were money-grubbing bottom-feeders with an eye for the main chance.

Older Americans may recall the "Egg McBentsen" (http://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/18/Records-show-Bentsen-wealthy-Quayle-will-be/9754587880000/). Lloyd Bentsen developed his habits in Texas, although not as a member of the state legislature. That's what your proposal will bring about, Doofa. It may be no worse than what we have, but it sure as hell isn't better.

Politics just seems to attract the wrong sort

Syntactical Disruptorize
15th November 15, 12:42 PM
Politics just seems to attract the wrong sort
It's a zero-sum game played with other people's money. I can think of no other sort it would attract.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 12:48 PM
"One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers"

This is nonsensical voodoo economics, but if you believe that, then double your staff wages again.

The thing is Reese, you're full of shit. You can post as many links as you want, but until you follow through by putting your money where your mouth is, then you're just flapping your gums whilst refusing to put these idiotic ideas into practice, because there's a sane core to you which knows you'd close your business down if you followed through.

You can't avoid this reality by talking more, and you definitely can't convince anybody around you.

Put up, or shut up.



To say you miss the point every single time I post is a monumental understatement.
Keep posting your double wage red herring. I giggle every time you do it.

Cullion
15th November 15, 01:01 PM
To say you miss the point every single time I post is a monumental understatement.
Keep posting your double wage red herring. I giggle every time you do it.

I can almost see you doing 'quote marks' in the air as you speak. I understand that you believe you have a secret weapon which will turn this argument around so you don't look like a complete idiot. Now, Sir, is the time to reveal it.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:10 PM
I run a successful business.
If I want that business to be destroyed, I'll implement your idea.

Üser Friendly
15th November 15, 01:16 PM
How much would you pay Cullion, Kitty?

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:19 PM
How much would you pay Cullion, Kitty?
I would give him a wage befitting an uppity, cherry-picking red-herring.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:28 PM
"One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers"

This is nonsensical voodoo economics.

Walmart believes this wholeheartedly. Problem is, their employees are paid so little, that they have to be on welfare.
They spend their welfare at Walmart, so the taxpayers are subsidizing the Walton family which have amassed 150 BILLION dollars.

I know you don't see the problem with that, probably because you were raised in a Christian family.

Cullion
15th November 15, 01:35 PM
I run a successful business.
If I want that business to be destroyed, I'll implement your idea.

It's not my idea, it's your idea. You're the one who doesn't believe the market should determine wages and that more is better.

Cullion
15th November 15, 01:40 PM
Walmart believes this wholeheartedly. Problem is, their employees are paid so little, that they have to be on welfare.

They don't have to be on welfare. But a citizen's wage is such a helpful thing. If you implemented a high minimum wage for these staff it would simply make many of them unemployed and cost the taxpayer more.



They spend their welfare at Walmart, so the taxpayers are subsidizing the Walton family which have amassed 150 BILLION dollars.
I know you don't see the problem with that, probably because you were raised in a Christian family.

No I wasn't. My father is a life-long atheist.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:41 PM
It's not my idea, it's your idea. You're the one who doesn't believe the market should determine wages and that more is better.Wrong.
I'm the one who believes that people who work full time shouldn't have to be on welfare and that a company should raise wages as soon as they can afford to to keep their employees motivated and loyal.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:44 PM
They don't have to be on welfare. Since their being paid 10% less than a living wage, they can sleep in a cardboard box under a bridge or starve to save money.

Cullion
15th November 15, 01:45 PM
Wrong.
I'm the one who believes that people who work full time shouldn't have to be on welfare

So vote to cut welfare. Prices paid by the lowest paid workers will go down.


that a company should raise wages as soon as they can afford to to keep their employees motivated and loyal.

It depends on the cost of churn and replacement. In some areas the cost of churn is very high. But the best people to make that judgement in each case are the people responsible for the profit and loss of the business, not legislators.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 01:56 PM
So vote to cut welfare. Prices paid by the lowest paid workers will go down.
Walmart will lower prices in response to their customers not being able to spend their 6.2 billion dollars at Walmart?
No voodoo in those economics. lol




It depends on the cost of churn and replacement. In some areas the cost of churn is very high. But the best people to make that judgement in each case are the people responsible for the profit and loss of the business, not legislators.

Small businesses should be treated differently than predatory multinationals like Walmart. You are delusional if you think that the best fish to guard a baby is a shark.

Cullion
15th November 15, 03:33 PM
Walmart will lower prices in response to their customers not being able to spend their 6.2 billion dollars at Walmart?
No voodoo in those economics. lol

So you don't think prices of goods respond to the supply of money available to purchase them? Okay Reese, sounds reasonable! (twirls finger next to temple)


Small businesses should be treated differently than predatory multinationals like Walmart. You are delusional if you think that the best fish to guard a baby is a shark.

So you no longer think that forcing Walmart to set its wages higher would make it more profitable, but believe that it has to be forced to do so for the benefit of its employees?

Please, make up your mind.

Your political opinions just sound like cookie-cutter incoherent liberalism thinly disguised behind sarcasm and 'quote fingers'.

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 04:04 PM
Haven't you been paying attention? Walmart's turnover rate is over 30%
Walmart employees can be paid a living wage and they will still spend the bulk of their money at Walmart. The price hike on their goods would be negligible. The reason Walmart does not pay a living wage is because their employees use taxpayer welfare money at their stores. the poor poor Walton multi-billionaires are complaining that since the govt has cut back welfare funds they aren't reaping in so much pure profit.

Cullion
15th November 15, 04:13 PM
Haven't you been paying attention? Walmart's turnover rate is over 30%

Walmart aren't concerned. Why should you be on their behalf ?

But let's do this. Let's watch how your maths crumbles into little pieces..



Walmart employees can be paid a living wage and they will still spend the bulk of their money at Walmart.

For most walmart employees accommodation and transportation are going to be their biggest expenses. Is walmart a landlord ? car rentals ?



The price hike on their goods would be negligible.

Well, given the above, nope.



The reason Walmart does not pay a living wage is because their employees use taxpayer welfare money at their stores.

If your points above were true (which they obviously aren't, from the perspective of basic arithmetic), then Walmart wouldn't care that they could save money by relying on welfare subsidy.



the poor poor Walton multi-billionaires are complaining that since the govt has cut back welfare funds they aren't reaping in so much pure profit.

So do you side with Walmart in increasing welfare for the in-work, or no ?

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 04:39 PM
Walmart aren't concerned.

ORLY? (http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2015/02/19/one-reason-wal-mart-is-raising-pay-turnover/)



For most walmart employees accommodation and transportation are going to be their biggest expenses. Is walmart a landlord ? car rentals ? Red herring. Every person has to live somewhere and and bus passes are cheap. It's about everything else that a person needs which is coincidentally all located at Walmart. A Walmart employee is not going to use ta raise to buy a bigger apartment and car since they are struggling to afford the minimum housing and transpo to begin with.


So do you side with Walmart in increasing welfare for the in-work, or no ?
Um, not following your jargon.


Put simply, Wal-Mart knows that shopping in its stores can be frustrating when staff can’t answer shoppers’ questions or don’t care enough to make the experience pleasant. A year ago, Gap (http://www.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GPS) Inc.GPS -4.86% (http://blogs.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GPS?mod=inlineTicker), raised pay for its hourly workers in part to keep skilled, motivated workers on its retail floors. A large body of research—some conducted decades ago by current Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen (http://topics.wsj.com/person/Y/janet,-yellen/5513)—suggests that raising wages leads to lower employee turnover and better customer service, which generally correlate with higher sales and lower expenses.

LOLOL.

Cullion
15th November 15, 05:46 PM
ORLY? (http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2015/02/19/one-reason-wal-mart-is-raising-pay-turnover/)

The thing is, you don't really have any beliefs, you just have this permanent itch you can't scratch which makes you want to complain about things all the time in a mildly irritatic sarcastic way, as if you've stumbled across some great secret you're deigning to share. It's a bit like one of the fake personas 18 year olds put on for their first year of university to try and appear cool.

First Walmart couldn't be trusted to raise wages even though you think it's in their interest, now they're doing it without any state interference because it's in their interest.

Do you see how at no-point in this discussion you've created a case for the state to mandate a higher minimum wage ?



Red herring. Every person has to live somewhere and and bus passes are cheap. It's about everything else that a person needs which is coincidentally all located at Walmart. A Walmart employee is not going to use ta raise to buy a bigger apartment and car since they are struggling to afford the minimum housing and transpo to begin with.

So you're clarifying that most of their income doesn't get spent in Walmart ? That's good to know.

What was your point again?

MerkinMuffly
15th November 15, 06:14 PM
The thing is, you don't really have any beliefs, you just have this permanent itch you can't scratch which makes you want to complain about things all the time in a mildly irritatic sarcastic way, as if you've stumbled across some great secret you're deigning to share. It's a bit like one of the fake personas 18 year olds put on for their first year of university to try and appear cool. I know that when the ad-homs start I have won.


First Walmart couldn't be trusted to raise wages even though you think it's in their interest, now they're doing it without any state interference because it's in their interest.
Thus proving me correct all along.



Do you see how at no-point in this discussion you've created a case for the state to mandate a higher minimum wage ? I don't recall stating that across the board wage increases should be mandated. Perhaps you lied about not drinking...




So you're clarifying that most of their income doesn't get spent in Walmart ? That's good to know.

What was your point again?
Maybe another drink will help.

Cullion
16th November 15, 08:30 AM
You used the first ad-hom, and I'm right about everything else.

You have just conceded that there's no need to increase the minimum wage.

Cullion
16th November 15, 08:31 AM
'have another drink'?

yes, I'm really getting under your skin. dance on the end of my string, puppet.

Üser Friendly
16th November 15, 12:25 PM
Get a room you two

Cullion
16th November 15, 12:29 PM
I'm not into muscle marys

Üser Friendly
16th November 15, 01:46 PM
Close your eyes and think of England

MerkinMuffly
16th November 15, 02:24 PM
You used the first ad-hom, and I'm right about everything else.

You have just conceded that there's no need to increase the minimum wage.
There are plenty of reasons. The ones I've given you ignore because you are brainwashed.

MerkinMuffly
16th November 15, 02:46 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/webkit-fake-url://a7e63edd-8e1c-457a-ad66-9a5d98dbceee/imagejpeg
If wages in the US kept up with productivity the minimum wage would be over $20 an hour.

NoBowie
16th November 15, 03:01 PM
Reesette: Explain why someone can't live on ~1200 a month. (minimum wage)

Your explanation should not include:


"because they have a wife and / or kids" (not the taxpayer's responsibility to support your choice to procreate or be the sole provider in a household)
"because no one can afford a home" (again, not a right to live or your own or the taxpayer's responsibility)
"because healthcare" - separate issue, you can get healthcare with a full time job and also your savior Obama has options for that as well.
"student loans" - deferred until after school and payment plans are very generous. I paid $45 a month for like 10 years.
non-essential items such as new clothes, eating out, movies, tropical vacations, etc.

NoBowie
16th November 15, 03:11 PM
Let's say you work in San Francisco, one of the most expensive places to live IN THE WORLD. You can rent a 3 bedroom apartment in Oakland (right across the bridge) for $1500, split that with 2 roommates and your rent is $500 a month.

Busing in to the city is ~$60 a month, leaving $440 for food and savings. Plenty.

Here's the problem: It is not enough to feed a marijuana / cigarette / booze or comic book habit, eating out every day, cable TV for the sports channel, internet, XBOX live subscription and a few new games a month, and the 2 kids you popped out with your lazy girlfriend who doesn't want to work.

MerkinMuffly
16th November 15, 03:36 PM
Let's say you work in San Francisco, one of the most expensive places to live IN THE WORLD. You can rent a 3 bedroom apartment in Oakland (right across the bridge) for $1500, split that with 2 roommates and your rent is $500 a month.

Busing in to the city is ~$60 a month, leaving $440 for food and savings. Plenty.

Here's the problem: It is not enough to feed a marijuana / cigarette / booze or comic book habit, eating out every day, cable TV for the sports channel, internet, XBOX live subscription and a few new games a month, and the 2 kids you popped out with your lazy girlfriend who doesn't want to work.
I won't even check to see if you did ducted withholding tax. I'm sure reliable roommates are all over the place just at the right time. . Oh where they going to get first and last month and a deposit? What happens if they have to go to the doctor? Why am I responding to your idiotic post?
My bad.

MerkinMuffly
16th November 15, 03:44 PM
Exactly which jobs offer health care with minimum wage? I find it absolutely hilarious that your contingency plan saddles the taxpayer with the healthcare portion.

Cullion
16th November 15, 03:59 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/webkit-fake-url://a7e63edd-8e1c-457a-ad66-9a5d98dbceee/imagejpeg
If wages in the US kept up with productivity the minimum wage would be over $20 an hour.

Well, it does depend how you are measuring productivity and what's caused the increase. If the workers are more productive because of improved technology that the employers invested in, then there's no obvious case for wages increasing.

Maybe the much touted increased skill level of the American workforce is illusory bullshit that's measured with the blunt instrument of 'years spent in school', when most of the population isn't really acquiring much in the way of useful skills in college?

Maybe too may Americans come out much more deeply in debt, having spent years studying softball humanities courses and courses designed to improve their self-esteem and 'social awareness' (i.e. new left political indoctrination) without really having learned how to be more useful to other people who need to get work done.

You also have to remember that quality isn't the only factor in the price of a good. Quality is something that affects demand and often reduces supply by making the good more expensive to produce, but, especially when we're talking about the Labour market, we have to consider the fact that supply is affected by things like demographics and immigration.

I think you'd need to show me hard data to convince me that rising productivity wasn't just caused by a mix of increased tech investment (for which one would expect the investors to benefit) combined with increased third world immigration supplying a new, less entitled labour force to handle the less skilled work.

I understand that this picture is unsettling, and it's understandable that you'd want to do something about it to stop the former proudly independent American middle class being reduced to a kind of nervous servitude where they precariously maintain their first world lifestyle performing largely meaningless tasks with spreadsheets and email whilst quietly hoping they don't piss off the wrong executive and all the genuinely economically useful work is done by recent immigrants (facing ever greater competition from robots and self-driving vehicles) and a much smaller technically skilled upper middle class.

The answer is not to turn Luddite, or to closed-borders immigration policy or attempting to force employers to pay more than employees are worth. The answer is to make ordinary middle class Americans actually be worth more, and to encourage them and enable them to save and invest again, so that the broadest possible demographic hold a stake in the new capitalism of machine ownership.

This will need radical reform of your educational institutions so that Americans return to being independent people who understand the value of practical skills learned by apprenticeship and self-teaching (whether they be manual trades or intellectually skilled work), rather than the entitled class of college certified semi-skilled bureaucrats that took hold during the baby boom.

Feryk
16th November 15, 04:04 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/webkit-fake-url://a7e63edd-8e1c-457a-ad66-9a5d98dbceee/imagejpeg
If wages in the US kept up with productivity the minimum wage would be over $20 an hour.


This ignores the cost of the technology needed to increase the productivity. Add that back in and it works.

Feryk
16th November 15, 04:07 PM
Btw, you guys are really doing a fine job of arguing two sides of the same coin. Bravo.

Has it occurred to either of you that you both have a point? And that it's different?

Cullion
16th November 15, 04:20 PM
nope

NoBowie
16th November 15, 04:23 PM
Exactly which jobs offer health care with minimum wage?

Walmart, for one. http://blog.walmart.com/business/20141007/providing-quality-health-benefits-for-our-associates
Toys R Us: http://www.toysrusinc.com/careers/benefits/
Target: https://corporate.target.com/careers/benefits

Pretty much every large minimum wage employer (gee, the corporations are better at providing healthcare than the Mom and Pop shops)


I find it absolutely hilarious that your contingency plan saddles the taxpayer with the healthcare portion.

That was more a barb at left wings and their love for Obamacare. Employer provided options are adequate.



I won't even check to see if you did ducted withholding tax.

Minimum wage is over 1200 a month. Those making minimum should be taking the minimum deductions. Notice in my example I worked with 1000 a month, not 1200.


I'm sure reliable roommates are all over the place just at the right time.

Yes. And you can go to the library and use many different sites to locate one.


Oh where they going to get first and last month and a deposit?

They do not exist in a vacuum. Student loans, family, previous savings, prostitution, giving blood, volunteering for scientific studies, etc.


What happens if they have to go to the doctor?

They can go. See the healthcare section.


Why am I responding to your idiotic post?
My bad.

Because it is not an idiotic post. It is reality and simple maths and must be addressed.

Feryk
16th November 15, 04:31 PM
nope

You were right about the competitive advantage higher wages offer. It assumes a limited supply of SKILLED labour to be effective. And Reese employs skilled laborers.

And Reese was also right. Henry Ford incorporated the idea as a way of attracting and retaining the best autoworkers in the industry - because damn few could keep up the pace and he needed them to be effective. Higher wages meant putting the best people in the assembly line - so the line could move faster. I'm guessing the same is true in Reese's business. The higher wages means better people work for him longer, which means more and better (higher margin) work can get done. Less absenteeism, less turnover, etc.

You were also correct in saying that it doesn't work like that forever. Ford himself found that out when the 1929 crash hit and he went to $7/hr. Ford was big, but the increase in wages wasn't enough of an injection into the economy in the US to fix what was broken. If Reese kept doubling his wages, he would gain less advantage because his workers can not be infinitely skilled/productive. So there is an optimal point. And finding it and staying near it are the job of management.

What Ford did was a case of a company that was large enough that it could have an impact on macroeconomic issues in the US. WalMart could fit that bill today, along with Apple, Google, facebook, and a bunch of others.

NoBowie
16th November 15, 04:37 PM
What Ford did was a case of a company that was large enough that it could have an impact on macroeconomic issues in the US. WalMart could fit that bill today, along with Apple, Google, facebook, and a bunch of others.

Apple, Google, and Facebook pay their employees lots of money and they also have very smart / productive employees. Are you saying they need to pay them more?

Walmart hires a much less skilled brand of worker.

They don't really compare to the other three you listed.

Feryk
16th November 15, 04:38 PM
No. I'm saying they are large enough that if they did something like that - or the opposite (massive layoffs), the economy of the US as a whole would feel it.

You might call it - Too Big To Fail.

Cullion
16th November 15, 05:10 PM
Henry Ford incorporated the idea as a way of attracting and retaining the best autoworkers in the industry - because damn few could keep up the pace and he needed them to be effective.

Actually, that's what I said first in the thread. It's a skilled worker retention measure. Note: It only works as a competitive measure. It doesn't work when everybody is following a minimum wage law.
I very clearly pointed out that whether it makes sense as business strategy depends very much on the cost of churn in that business.

Reese bellowing about corporations underpaying people is just him pretending not to understand these economic considerations.



What Ford did was a case of a company that was large enough that it could have an impact on macroeconomic issues in the US. WalMart could fit that bill today, along with Apple, Google, facebook, and a bunch of others.

Apple, Google and Facebook employees are way too skilled for minimum wage laws to ever be relevant for them.

Walmart employs hordes of unskilled people it controls with technology and good business process (the cost of churn is just not high enough to justify Apple or Google like wages).

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 01:51 AM
I would suggest that the average politician is more Walmart than Apple

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 03:45 AM
In Texas, we paid legislators $7,200/year, which wouldn't cover rent on an efficiency apartment in Austin. The result was the biggest pack of bought-out sons of bitches you ever saw. They were neither independently wealthy nor idealists; they were money-grubbing bottom-feeders with an eye for the main chance.

What makes you think that the rate of pay Texas pays its legislators affected how the electorate voted to bring these bad sorts into positions of power?

Perhaps Texans prefer politicians with bad characters. We do here in Ireland it would seem

Cullion
17th November 15, 05:27 AM
What makes you think that the rate of pay Texas pays its legislators affected how the electorate voted to bring these bad sorts into positions of power?

The rate of pay isn't likely to affect voter preferences, but it will likely affect the selection of people who stand for election in the first place.

MerkinMuffly
17th November 15, 05:32 AM
The needs of the Waltons outweigh the needs of the many.
They really need to get to a 200 billion dollar net worth while their employees struggle to make ends meet.
Let them eat cake.

Pie of Hate
17th November 15, 05:38 AM
Let them eat cake.

Only if they meet the minimum aesthetic qualities.

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 05:57 AM
The rate of pay isn't likely to affect voter preferences, but it will likely affect the selection of people who stand for election in the first place.

I say it will not, and this graph supports my position

http://cloud.highcharts.com/embed/ohaxyn

Italy is perhaps the most openly corrupt country in western Europe, with the highest payed Reps

Spain, also renowned for corruption in politics but has the lowest

Ireland is more corrupt than the UK, but with higher wages

Your theory does not hold much water

Cullion
17th November 15, 07:51 AM
you haven't compared the graph with a graph of corruption, you've compared a graph with some anecdotes/opinions about corruption

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 08:25 AM
You haven't provided any colorful graphs to support you opinion, but to appease you...

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

Compare the scores to the Rep wages and you will find no correlation

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 11:42 AM
To make it easy on you I have ranked the countries in the Rep pay graph from the second link- least corrupt first.
(Numbers in parenthesis are their rank from the Rep pay graph)

NZ (8th)
Sweden (9th)
Norway (5th)
Canada (4th)
Australia (2nd)
Germany (7th)
UK (10th)
US (3rd)- Ireland (6th)
France (11th)
Spain (12th)
Italy (1st)

Absolutely no correlation, as I think you will agree

Even in countries that would have very similar cultures (Norway and Sweden) the differential in pay does not have much effect on corruption, in fact it has the opposite effect, with Sweden, on lower pay than Norway, but with less corruption

So once and for all Cullion, quit your "We must pay our Legislators well or only corrupt people will be attracted to politics" mantra

MerkinMuffly
17th November 15, 12:39 PM
Money and power are highly addictive drugs. Justice and 'truth' have become commodities sold to the highest bidder.

Cullion
17th November 15, 01:54 PM
You haven't provided any colorful graphs to support you opinion, but to appease you...

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

Compare the scores to the Rep wages and you will find no correlation

"Based on expert opinion from around the world"

This is a collection of anecdotes, not a scientific measure of anything.

My logic is based on logic, not mere guesswork.

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 02:36 PM
"Based on expert opinion from around the world"

This is a collection of anecdotes, not a scientific measure of anything.

My logic is based on my own personal opinion and prejudices, not mere guesswork.

*YAWN*

Well perhaps you could provide some stats to buttress your 'logic'

No?

Oh, what a suprise

Cullion
17th November 15, 02:59 PM
you're making an argument that uses a made up number to represent corruption. you understand that, right ?

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 03:30 PM
you're making an argument that uses a made up number to represent corruption. you understand that, right ?

And you're making an argument without any numbers, just wot yoo fink, you understand that, right?

NoBowie
17th November 15, 03:46 PM
This isn't about corruption versus integrity.

I do think politicians will be corrupt no matter what wage, due to the power and potential for bribes, etc. aspects of the position.

However, if you were to compare the resumes / experience of politicians in different countries based on wage, (and wage comparative to other jobs in the country) you would certainly get better candidates (more experience or success) in the ones that pay more. It is simple logic and economics.

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 03:56 PM
This isn't about corruption versus integrity.


In Texas, we paid legislators $7,200/year, which wouldn't cover rent on an efficiency apartment in Austin. The result was the biggest pack of bought-out sons of bitches you ever saw. They were neither independently wealthy nor idealists; they were money-grubbing bottom-feeders with an eye for the main chance.

This was the point we were arguing

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 04:00 PM
However, if you were to compare the resumes / experience of politicians in different countries based on wage, (and wage comparative to other jobs in the country) you would certainly get better candidates (more experience or success) in the ones that pay more. It is simple logic and economics.

SHOW ME THE GRAPH BITCH!

Üser Friendly
17th November 15, 04:02 PM
DOUBLE POST BITCH!

Cullion
17th November 15, 04:07 PM
And you're making an argument without any numbers, just wot yoo fink, you understand that, right?

I'm arguing from what we saw in British history. My opinion is worth more than a normal person's

NoBowie
17th November 15, 06:11 PM
SHOW ME THE GRAPH BITCH!

The 'graph bitch'?

Is that like a 'statistics slut'?

Or, let me get this straight, you are suggesting the centuries, nay millennia old, tried and true, very logical practice of attracting / rewarding more experienced / qualified folks with higher pay / societal power is wrong?

I would say the need for graphical proof is on you.

If you are going to argue against the fundamental principle related to higher compensation for higher perceived societal value that all modern societies are based on I am not sure I can discuss the subject with you, we don't have a place to start the discussion from. Enjoy your life in the alternate universe you have created in your mind.

MerkinMuffly
17th November 15, 08:11 PM
The pope has 'societal power' and is rewarded obscenely. Is it his callous disregard for suffering or penchant for child rape that excites you more?

NoBowie
17th November 15, 08:25 PM
It's not a perfect model. It is a logical model. It is the best model we have.

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 01:30 AM
I'm arguing from out of my arse. I think my opinion is worth more than a normal person's

Perhaps you could provide some actual references to your opinion

It's not that i think you're full of shit, but...

Well actually I do think you're full of shit

And a very poor looser to boot

But the worst part is how you have influenced poor NoB

He is a harmless simpleton and you have taken advantage of that

for shame

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 01:43 AM
Or, let me get this straight, you are suggesting the centuries, nay millennia old, tried and true, very logical practice of attracting / rewarding more experienced / qualified folks with higher pay / societal power is wrong?

+++NEWS FLASH FOR NOB+++

In the past people were often promoted for other reasons other than their ability

They could be promoted because of their family name, their wealth, their ideology or how well they flatter the leader. A bit like today


I would say the need for graphical proof is on you.

i have already shown you a nice graph with lots of different colours so shut up


If you are going to argue against the fundamental principle related to higher compensation for higher perceived societal value that all modern societies are based on I am not sure I can discuss the subject with you, we don't have a place to start the discussion from. Enjoy your life in the alternate universe you have created in your mind.

LOL at your anecdotal evidence

As it it is so fundamental surely you can provide some form of reference instead of mimicking Cullion like the dirty little monkey you are

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 02:42 AM
http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/when-higher-pay-attracts-the-wrong-job-candidates


Her data suggest that when the jobs are advertised as high paying, they actually attract fewer applicants who are committed to the organization’s social mission.

Cullion
18th November 15, 03:18 AM
Perhaps you could provide some actual references to your opinion

I've seen a lot of reports from parliament that lay out in great detail why they need to be paid more. And these are official reports.

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 05:28 AM
My opinion is worth more than a normal person's

perhaps fadó fadó, but going by your recent performances you are looking like a spent force

You have become so easy to out-debate that even I can own you

And you being so clever and all

It's a bit sad really, like a broken down pit pony, once so strong

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 05:35 AM
It's not a perfect model. It is a logical model. It is the best model we have.

I have clearly demonstrated that wages do not influence quality of those who put themselves forward for election

For you to cling to this logical fallacy despite this information, merely because it suits your world view and prejudices, is hardly what I would call logic

But I know you have a problem with what logic means, what with you being a harmless simpleton and all, so I'll let you off

Pie of Hate
18th November 15, 06:22 AM
Your transparency link says it gets it's information from volunteers. No named experts. Volunteers. You're basing your arguments on the opinions of people that have taken an on-line survey.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/1EGIT/not-a-great-plan/image.png

Cullion
18th November 15, 07:19 AM
perhaps fadó fadó, but going by your recent performances you are looking like a spent force

You have become so easy to out-debate that even I can own you

That's just how it works in your imagination, and it only happens because you can't tell the difference between right and wrong.

Cullion
18th November 15, 07:20 AM
Doofa, if I organise a survey of my own volunteer experts on which countries are corrupt and which aren't, would you accept the results of that?

I'd use colours and make a graph, obviously.

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 07:40 AM
Your transparency link says it gets it's information from volunteers. No named experts. Volunteers. You're basing your arguments on the opinions of people that have taken an on-line survey.

Do you consider the ranking given by the link wrong?

Do you consider Italy the least corrupt country in Europe, which it should be if Cullion's argument holds any water?

Try this one

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

Again Italy is nowhere near the top

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 07:41 AM
That's just how it works in your imagination, and it only happens because you can't tell ... what was I saying again

Early onset dementia?

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 07:47 AM
Doofa, if I organise a survey of my own volunteer experts on which countries are corrupt and which aren't, would you accept the results of that?

I'd use colours and make a graph, obviously.

It would be more helpful if you provided data that supports you dead argument from an independent (that is, not made up by you or me) source

Your unwillingness to do so draws me to the conclusion that you can not find data that finds Italy to be the least corrupt state in Europe or you would have already done so

But you can definitely draw a colourfull graph if you like, as that kind of creative activity will slow the onset of your dementia

By the way, do you consider Italy to be the least corrupt country in Europe?

Cullion
18th November 15, 08:01 AM
Your unwillingness to do so draws me to the conclusion that you can not find data that finds Italy to be the least corrupt state in Europe or you would have already done so

Nordics are less corrupt than Mediterraneans regardless of income according to your sources. Sounds a bit racist to me. Do you support this anonymously sourced anecdotal evidence ?

Pie of Hate
18th November 15, 08:54 AM
Do you consider the ranking given by the link wrong?

Do you consider Italy the least corrupt country in Europe, which it should be if Cullion's argument holds any water?

Try this one

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

Again Italy is nowhere near the top

LOL! That one is based on political rights and civil liberties. That addresses human rights violations not the type of corruption being discussed.

Do you even read your own links?

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 09:02 AM
Nordics are less corrupt than Mediterraneans regardless of income according to your sources. Sounds a bit racist to me. Do you support this anonymously sourced anecdotal evidence ?

See how he wriggles and writhes to avoid answering the question

Which do you fear the most Cullion? Being wrong or not being right?

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 09:06 AM
LOL! That one is based on political rights and civil liberties. That addresses human rights violations not the type of corruption being discussed.

Do you even read your own links?

What are you talking about Cake? The table clearly ranks countries according to corruption

This early onset dementia is clearly contagious

So would you agree with Cullion that Italy is the least corrupt country in Europe, because hey, they pay their politicians the most after all?

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 09:16 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index


Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[4] The 2012 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.[5] The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Political Risk Services, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the World Justice Project.[6]

Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[7] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.[7]

The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption

Pie of Hate
18th November 15, 09:48 AM
This is the methodology from your own link! (http://www.worldaudit.org/methodology.htm)

Where in there does it analyse personal corruption of elected officials, rather than human rights violations of the governments as a whole?


So would you agree with Cullion that Italy is the least corrupt country in Europe, because hey, they pay their politicians the most after all?

Bullshit question is bullshit.

Cullion
18th November 15, 11:34 AM
The trouble with your point Doofa, is that you can't tell the difference between scientifically collected data that measures something meaningful, and anonymous opinions that have been turned into a 'sciencey looking' graph.

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 12:25 PM
See what you've done Cullion, now you've corrupted Cake

I hope you're pleased with yourself


This is the methodology from your own link! (http://www.worldaudit.org/methodology.htm)

Where in there does it analyse personal corruption of elected officials, rather than human rights violations of the governments as a whole?

Fair enough, dismiss the data, dismiss the other data from Transparency

Perhaps you could provide data on corruption that meets with your approval




Bullshit question is bullshit.

Bullshit answer is even more bullshit

Cullion
18th November 15, 12:28 PM
i could teach you so much if only you'd stop resisting and just listen

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 12:29 PM
The trouble with your point Doofa, is that you can't tell the difference between scientifically collected data that measures something meaningful, and anonymous opinions that have been turned into a 'sciencey looking' graph.

Fine, provide scientifically collected data on corruption

Anything is better than the "I'm smart so my opinion is correct" rubbish you have been spouting for the last few pages

You still haven't said whether you think Italy is the least corrupt country in Europe

I get the impression that you are avoiding the question

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 12:29 PM
i could teach you so much if only you'd stop resisting and just listen

I'm not going to have sex with you and that's final

Feryk
18th November 15, 12:40 PM
Fine, provide scientifically collected data on corruption

Anything is better than the "I'm smart so my opinion is correct" rubbish you have been spouting for the last few pages

You still haven't said whether you think Italy is the least corrupt country in Europe

I get the impression that you are avoiding the question

Except that he is smart and his opinion is correct.

Üser Friendly
18th November 15, 02:29 PM
not in this case

Pie of Hate
18th November 15, 03:39 PM
See what you've done Cullion, now you've corrupted Cake

I hope you're pleased with yourself



Fair enough, dismiss the data, dismiss the other data from Transparency

Perhaps you could provide data on corruption that meets with your approval.
Bullshit answer is even more bullshit

It's not my approval that matters; it's sticking to the original topic of the debate. The links you provided got dismissed because perception based surveys are only useful in popularity contests.

Bullshit question is bullshit because you are trying to force everyone into answering using absolutes which you would then use to build a strawman and brow beat everyone with it.

Pie of Hate
18th November 15, 03:40 PM
That went a bit wrong.

EDIT: never mind. Fixed it.

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 01:48 AM
It's not my approval that matters; it's sticking to the original topic of the debate.

Well the debate side tracked to 'Low pay = corrupt legislators' based on the Texas example supplied by Cy. The 'Lords and Loonies' logical fallacy was bought back and here we are


The links you provided got dismissed because perception based surveys are only useful in popularity contests.

Transparency is not some dodgey red top news paper, it's a well respected organization, and it's ranking system, though based on methodology you find distasteful is broadly speaking as one would expect, Scandinavian countries at the top, N Korea at the bottom.

Also, as the lack of alternative figures shows, it is the only game in town

So what does that mean? We can't discuss corruption here because the only source of data is not empirical enough for ya?


Bullshit question is bullshit because you are trying to force everyone into answering using absolutes which you would then use to build a strawman and brow beat everyone with it.

There is no strawman here. The argument was posited that higher wages for reps means lower corruption. Italy, with it's high rep wages should by that theory be a place of low corruption. Cullion doesn't want to answer the question because it means his opinion might be wrong less right, and we can't have that now, can we?

I don't need you to answer the question because we all know the answer. Italy is a highly corrupt place, by European standards, and if any one wants to contradict that I want empirical data .... no wait there is no empirical data on corruption, you'll just have to trust me on this one

MerkinMuffly
19th November 15, 02:41 AM
Cullion wants politicians paid so well that it's impossible to tell by their lifestyle that they're getting bribes.

MerkinMuffly
19th November 15, 02:41 AM
IOW, politicians he can masturbate to.

Cullion
19th November 15, 03:36 AM
Transparency is not some dodgey red top news paper, it's a well respected organization, and it's ranking system, though based on methodology you find distasteful is broadly speaking as one would expect, Scandinavian countries at the top, N Korea at the bottom.

iow, you respect it. we don't. and you agree with it's conclusions because you are a nordic supremacist.



Also, as the lack of alternative figures shows, it is the only game in town

Their figures are a crude attempt to make some anonymous opinions look like something that was measured scientifically. We can all see that, and that's why we're laughing at your argument.


Italy is a highly corrupt place, by European standards, and if any one wants to contradict that I want empirical data .... no wait there is no empirical data on corruption, you'll just have to trust me on this one

It's as if you think that MP wages would be the only thing that affected corruption. You've made this class of error many times before; you don't seem to comprehend the idea of a multivariate problem. For your point to be true, you can't just show that Italy is more corrupt than some other country where the MPs have lower wages (not that you've managed that yet), you'd have to show that Italy would be equally or even less corrupt if their MP wages were lowered.

Pie of Hate
19th November 15, 05:51 AM
Italy is perhaps the most openly corrupt country in western Europe, with the highest payed Reps

That was your original statement on Italy which then morphed into this:-


Do you consider Italy the least corrupt country in Europe

You've rephrased your original statement to try to illicit a yes/no answer. Either of these will send the discussion off on a wild tangent.

If you'd have stuck to your original statement, limited to western Europe, you would have had a good pint to argue but throwing it open to all of Europe puts Italy on par with Greece and Romania with Albania being perceived as more corrupt therefore, your earlier links stop supporting your argument.

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 07:29 AM
iow, you respect it. we don't. and you agree with it's conclusions because you are a nordic supremacist.

All the broad sheet papers in the UK also respect them, as do government agencies and NGO's from around the world, enough to use their data

And I am of Italian decent (1/4 breed) with an Italian surname, so I'm no straping blond eager to rape and pillage you. Sorry to disappoint you


Their figures are a crude attempt to make some anonymous opinions look like something that was measured scientifically. We can all see that, and that's why we're laughing at your argument..

But you still can't provide alternative empirical figures. So that's it then. No more discussion on corruption on SC.com any more. Sorry guys


It's as if you think that MP wages would be the only thing that affected corruption. You've made this class of error many times before; you don't seem to comprehend the idea of a multivariate problem. For your point to be true, you can't just show that Italy is more corrupt than some other country where the MPs have lower wages (not that you've managed that yet), you'd have to show that Italy would be equally or even less corrupt if their MP wages were lowered.

I'm sure there are plenty of causes of corruption but we will never know because the data is not up to your specification

However your opinion about rate of pay correlating to corruption simply does not stand up to scrutiny. You just really want it to be true because it sounds sensible

Unless you can, in fact, illustrate it with some figures

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 07:34 AM
You've rephrased your original statement to try to illicit a yes/no answer. Either of these will send the discussion off on a wild tangent.

This is Sociocide Cake

We love wild tangential discussion


If you'd have stuck to your original statement, limited to western Europe, you would have had a good pint to argue but throwing it open to all of Europe puts Italy on par with Greece and Romania with Albania being perceived as more corrupt therefore, your earlier links stop supporting your argument.

Nitt pick and split hairs all you like, but the basic premise of Cullion's opinion is false and does not stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny

Pie of Hate
19th November 15, 07:49 AM
Neither does yours.

Cullion
19th November 15, 08:55 AM
All the broad sheet papers in the UK also respect them, as do government agencies and NGO's from around the world, enough to use their data

That doesn't prove anything. Journalism isn't science.



And I am of Italian decent (1/4 breed) with an Italian surname, so I'm no straping blond eager to rape and pillage you. Sorry to disappoint you

I do not believe you.



But you still can't provide alternative empirical figures. So that's it then. No more discussion on corruption on SC.com any more. Sorry guys

You don't get to decide. We, the elders of the community decide.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
19th November 15, 10:07 AM
How about using the World Bank CPIA (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ) instead?

Link to methodology. (http://www.worldbank.org/ida/IRAI/2011/webFAQ11.pdf)

Personally I dont see how these kind of data sets can be made scientifically objective but the above maybe a better place to start.

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 10:18 AM
Neither does yours.

What is my opinion as you see it?

Pie of Hate
19th November 15, 10:20 AM
Invalid.

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 10:24 AM
That doesn't prove anything. Journalism isn't science.

It proves that plenty of people take Transparency seriously. Smart people that inform change and implement policy


I am still holding on to the fantasy that you will sail your long boat up my estuary and take me roughly Sven. May I call you Sven?

Yes, you may call me Sven


You don't get to decide. We, the elders of the community decide.

Well, when you decide to allow the use of non-empirical data in discussion, let me know

Üser Friendly
19th November 15, 10:27 AM
Invalid.

I believe the term is disabled these days

Pie of Hate
19th November 15, 10:32 AM
Only if you're a hippy!

Cullion
19th November 15, 04:23 PM
How about using the World Bank CPIA (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ) instead?

Link to methodology. (http://www.worldbank.org/ida/IRAI/2011/webFAQ11.pdf)

Personally I dont see how these kind of data sets can be made scientifically objective but the above maybe a better place to start.


The ratings are the product of staff judgment

No, this is junk too.

Üser Friendly
20th November 15, 01:54 AM
Funny thing is, your whole position on this topic is based solely on your own judgment as you have offered no empirical data

So by your own standards your opinion is...


... junk too.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 04:12 AM
No, this is junk too.

Cant say I disagree. How would you propose such a metric could be constructed (if at all)?

Cullion
20th November 15, 05:16 AM
Funny thing is, your whole position on this topic is based solely on your own judgment as you have offered no empirical data

So by your own standards your opinion is...

I am not pretending to use science because I know when it's impossible and the wrong methodology. Thinking that the scientific method is the correct way to analyze all human questions is a 20th century conceit.

You don't understand this, and that's why it was easy for you to be taken in by something that was made to look like science without being science at all.

Pie of Hate
20th November 15, 05:18 AM
Cant say I disagree. How would you propose such a metric could be constructed (if at all)?

That's the thing; what government in it's right mind is going to keep well documented evidence of how corrupt it is?

Üser Friendly
20th November 15, 05:59 AM
I am not pretending to use science because I know when it's impossible and the wrong methodology. Thinking that the scientific method is the correct way to analyze all human questions is a 20th century conceit.

You don't understand this, and that's why it was easy for you to be taken in by something that was made to look like science without being science at all.

I don't recall making any claims that the data was scientific, it was merely the only data available, and its user friendlyness enabled a quick collation of information

But it is your conceit of only accepting data collected in a scientific manner which has led you down this rabbit hole of dismissing your own argument in order to avoid validating my opinion

Cutting off your nose to spite your face much?

Üser Friendly
20th November 15, 06:10 AM
That's the thing; what government in it's right mind is going to keep well documented evidence of how corrupt it is?

At a convention of African nation the presidents of two impoverish nations were having drinks, one of whom was the president of the host nation

As they stood on the balcony of the palatial residence, the cool night breeze cooling them, gazing at the lights of the city

"So Mr President, how did you afford such a beautiful residence, your country is very poor?" the visiting premier asked

"See that highway over there" replied the host pointing to the long snake of light that disappeared into the bush

The host turned towards his guest, bringing up his hand and rubbing fore finger and thumb together "30%"


Several years later the convention was held in the guest President's country, and once again the two men stood in a palace even more lavishly appointed than the last

"So Mr President, how did you afford a home even more beautiful than my own?"

"See that highway" said the now host, pointing to a dark horizon

"I see no highway Mr President" replied the man confused

He rubbed his thumb and forefinger together

"100%"

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 07:32 AM
TL:DR - could you sum it up in a graph?

Pie of Hate
20th November 15, 08:31 AM
TL:DR - could you sum it up in a graph?

Showing the equivalent dollar (USD $) value between the 2 (two) roads per metre run. This should also be adjusted for inflation and the difference between the exchange values of the 2 (two) countries currencies.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 08:58 AM
You know the drill Cake, graph or you may as well be Doofa!

Pie of Hate
20th November 15, 09:15 AM
GOYMAWBD!

http://www.roadusers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/graph-2.4.2-no2.png

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 09:57 AM
THE BASTARDS!!!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 10:00 AM
Sorry, let me Doofatize that..

http://i.imgur.com/rhQHgY1.png

Üser Friendly
20th November 15, 12:41 PM
TL:DR - could you sum it up in a graph?


Showing the equivalent dollar (USD $) value between the 2 (two) roads per metre run. This should also be adjusted for inflation and the difference between the exchange values of the 2 (two) countries currencies.

You can't measure humor empirically so I'm afraid you are just going to have to take my word for it that it was a really funny joke

Feryk
20th November 15, 01:54 PM
Cant say I disagree. How would you propose such a metric could be constructed (if at all)?


Freakonomics. Corruption can be measured, but it isn't simple.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th November 15, 02:24 PM
Freakonomics.

That's now on my wish list for Jesusmass :D

I still cant see how you can eliminate a large qualitative element to such things though & I'm not sure the answer will be in that book, having just read some reviews.

Feryk
20th November 15, 03:15 PM
He can use econometric analysis to point out anomalous behaviour. The premise is that people ALWAYS do what is in their own perceived best interest. If their behaviour doesn't match what it should, it's because there is an incentive you don't know about at play.

Hence, able to catch teachers cheating on standardized testing to maximize their paycheque, etc.

Fascinating stuff, actually.

Cullion
21st November 15, 02:18 PM
I don't recall making any claims that the data was scientific, it was merely the only data available, and its user friendlyness enabled a quick collation of information

But it is your conceit of only accepting data collected in a scientific manner which has led you down this rabbit hole of dismissing your own argument in order to avoid validating my opinion

Cutting off your nose to spite your face much?

IOW 'I used it because it seemed easy to understand, and it was there. And I don't apply critical thinking to anything which looks like it agrees with my own views'.

Üser Friendly
22nd November 15, 04:13 AM
IOW 'I used it because it seemed easy to understand, and it was there. And I don't apply critical thinking to anything which looks like it agrees with my own views'.

IOW 'I rejected it because it left my argument in tatters and made me look wrong less right (as you all know I do not like to be wrong less right). And I do not accept anything that disagrees with my own views.'

Yes, we could play this game all day, but until you demonstrate that higher Rep pay produces less corruption you are just flapping your gums

And by 'demonstrate' I do not mean repeat your opinion without any data to back it up. And by your own standards it must, of coarse, be empirical in nature