Happy Mother's day

Originally posted by sh76
Money is fungible. Obviously, the money I take out later won't be exactly the same money I put in, but the same is true with a bank account.

Yes, ss benefits are not precisely tied to contributions, but there is a loose relationship. Anyway, the way ss is structured, I am entitled to assume that my ss benefits will be there for me as a product of my contribu ...[text shortened]... e of his being born because he's going to pay for my ss is absurd.

But you knew that already.

You're entitled to assume anything you want. Money is a social construct that implies an agreement that you can later exchange it for goods and services. When you retire, there is an implicit arrangement between you and the rest of society that you will be able to obtain a certain amount of goods and services. Those goods and services will still have to be produced by someone who will be supporting you, just as you are supporting non-working people now (if you are producing a useful service which as a lawyer you may or may not do).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i dispelled the myth that an unqualified worker can negotiate with a large employer.


a great lawyer can negotiate, a skilled manager, a talented football player. as close to mediocrity you are, the less bargaining chips you get. we have minimum wage laws and social security to protect those that can't make free market their bitch.

An employer says we need X for Y.
An employee says I need Y for X.

So they are on an equal footing in that respect, they are both free to assess their own values.

Then they are both free to reject the offer of the other party so they're both on an equal footing in that respect also.

I don't see what other way 'equal footing' is required. In fact any deviation from this position can only cause an unequal footing.

Originally posted by Wajoma
An employer says we need X for Y.
An employee says I need Y for X.

So they are on an equal footing in that respect, they are both free to assess their own values.

Then they are both free to reject the offer of the other party so they're both on an equal footing in that respect also.

I don't see what other way 'equal footing' is required. In fact any deviation from this position can only cause an unequal footing.

"An employer says we need X for Y.
An employee says I need Y for X."

An employer says he needs X for Y , and there are 100 people willing to give X for Y. or Y-1. or Y-n; or the employer can wait for X a non-zero period of time.

The employee needs to put food on the table, he can't afford to wait. he needs that job now. another factor that disturbs the balance. The employee lives in the US, he can't afford to go lower than Y, when a worker in Vietnam can go Y/3 or Y/4, another factor that disturbs the balance.


it is never a 1:1 negotiation, do you understand that? and it is never as simple as exchanging a good for another. if one starves and needs a bread and the other will not starve if he fails to sell that bread, he can afford to offer less bread for the same price.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

[b] we have minimum wage laws and social security to protect those that can't make free market their bitch.-Zahlanzi

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that you claim to be from Romania and not a U.S. citizen.[/b]

"Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that you claim to be from Romania and not a U.S. citizen."

"we" doesn't always mean us citizens. there are in fact other people living in the world.

"we", as social human beings forming societies, have invented minimum wage laws and social security.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're entitled to assume anything you want. Money is a social construct that implies an agreement that you can later exchange it for goods and services. When you retire, there is an implicit arrangement between you and the rest of society that you will be able to obtain a certain amount of goods and services. Those goods and services will still have to ...[text shortened]... king people now (if you are producing a useful service which as a lawyer you may or may not do).

You're entitled to believe as you wish, but try not to force your beliefs on others.

Originally posted by Eladar
You're entitled to believe as you wish, but try not to force your beliefs on others.

we do that all the time.
we believe one must not steal, murder, litter so we enforce these beliefs on others who don't.


every law is a belief that is imposed on everyone, regardless of whether they believe the same way or not.
what is up for debate is whether a certain belief (in this case, mothers should get a minimum of paid leave) is good or bad. this debate has been settled, in various degrees, in every country in the world : yes, women should get a non-zero period of paid leave after having a baby. except the US. and papua new guinea.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
we do that all the time.
we believe one must not steal, murder, litter so we enforce these beliefs on others who don't.


every law is a belief that is imposed on everyone, regardless of whether they believe the same way or not.
what is up for debate is whether a certain belief (in this case, mothers should get a minimum of paid leave) is good or bad ...[text shortened]... ld get a non-zero period of paid leave after having a baby. except the US. and papua new guinea.

Funny how you didn't have the reply for kaz.

Originally posted by Eladar
You're entitled to believe as you wish, but try not to force your beliefs on others.

Which beliefs specifically am I trying to force on others?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Which beliefs specifically am I trying to force on others?

This one in specifically disagree:

When you retire, there is an implicit arrangement between you and the rest of society that you will be able to obtain a certain amount of goods and services.

Originally posted by Eladar
This one in specifically disagree:

[b]When you retire, there is an implicit arrangement between you and the rest of society that you will be able to obtain a certain amount of goods and services. [/b]

Okay. What part do you disagree with, retirement funds existing or money being used as a medium of exchange?

Originally posted by Eladar
Funny how you didn't have the reply for kaz.

he doesn't need explaining that one is at a disadvantage when negotiating with walmart salary and benefits for a cashier job

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Okay. What part do you disagree with, retirement funds existing or money being used as a medium of exchange?

Read what you wrote. You said nothing about retirement funds.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he doesn't need explaining that one is at a disadvantage when negotiating with walmart salary and benefits for a cashier job

Here's how negotiating works:

You say: "I want X for Y"
The other party says "I need Y for X"

If the numbers stack up you do business. If not, both parties go their separate ways, no one owes anyone anything.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Here's how negotiating works:

You say: "I want X for Y"
The other party says "I need Y for X"

If the numbers stack up you do business. If not, both parties go their separate ways, no one owes anyone anything.

yes, i am familiar how this concept works. everyone is. yet that wasn't what i was discussing.

we are discussing the extra factors that decide exactly what x and y is.
so really, your little play would go more like:

"i want X for Y so i don't starve"
"Hahaha you're adorable, I am walmart, i can find a dozen more like you to do Y. I will give you X/2 but you need to do Y*2"
"How about X/2, for Y plus you pay for my health care"
"i don't think you understand your position here"
"fine, i will do whatever you want i don't have a choice"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, i am familiar how this concept works. everyone is. yet that wasn't what i was discussing.

we are discussing the extra factors that decide exactly what x and y is.
so really, your little play would go more like:

"i want X for Y so i don't starve"
"Hahaha you're adorable, I am walmart, i can find a dozen more like you to do Y. I will give you X ...[text shortened]... nk you understand your position here"
"fine, i will do whatever you want i don't have a choice"

If they had 'no choice' before. (And Walmart is not responsible for people thinking they have no choice.) Then Walmart at least gives them a choice, work for us or continue doing what you were doing i.e. believing you have no choice.