Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (46592)	5/11/2001 11:18:08 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT OK, how about this? Would people mind terribly labelling off topic posts as "OT," so that those of us who are looking for AMAT-related posts will not have so much trouble finding them?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (46592)	5/11/2001 4:21:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Consider the minimum wage. There is always an outcry from business that minimum wage employers will be hurt by a raise. Obviously, the minimum wage earner is achieving a goal for the employer (DO, not TRY), but the achievement's economic value is limited. For the employee it is sufficiently limited to require subsidies to meet life's minimum requirements. Most minimum wage earners do not fully support themselves or anyone else with the money from the minimum wage job. Many of them are teenagers. Some are student in their early twenties still getting support from their parents. Some are working a part time job at minimum wage either as a second job or in semi-retirement. If you insist that all of the people in these situations make enough to meet your opinion of life's minimum requirements then you will find that a good number of them no longer make anything because the services that they provide or the good they produce are not worth the cost that would have to be paid to meet your standard. Tim

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (46592)	5/11/2001 7:56:52 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

I disagree that it "then renders subsidies irrelevant." The 40 million Americans without health care are NOT on welfare, they are GAINFULLY (DO, not TRY) employed. Unfortunately, supply and demand doesn't merit their gainful employment with health benefits. Okay ... I understand your point of view, but I think you've missed mine. If the folks you cite do not have health care, I see it as THEIR responsibility to seek other circumstances in which it becomes available. They are working gainfully, but not reasonably - by definition - because the compensation they receive does not meet their (or your) idea of "reasonable." It is the worker's (supplier of labor) job to negotiate reasonable terms with the employer (consumer of labor). Union organization is one way to force the issue through monopolistic (and market-inefficient) behavior. "Seeking other circumstances" can mean anything from getting another job to night school for another career to going on strike. Anything. Non-sequitur - Health care became coupled to employment during WWII as a way to compensate executives during a salary freeze. It was then picked up by unions in their contracts, and eventually became common practice and expectation. IMO, health care should have NOTHING to do with your job; it should be more like car insurance, where each consumer negotiates it individually. For those who favor unions, that is a natural function for the union to provide - not the employer. If you realize this places a lot of responsibility on the worker/consumer, then you understand my thinking. Subsidies, in essence, provide the means for people to be irresponsible for themselves. Of course, political pressure to provide those subsidies is one of the ways of "seeking other circumstances" that I referred to above ... I just don't think it's anywhere close to being the most effective. I have absolutely no quarrel with any person or organization that chooses to give charity voluntarily. I do have a problem with coerced charity. - Mitch