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.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (1070)	6/23/2003 1:21:42 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

I see a unimpeachable personal choice in choosing to suck up carcinogenic fumes for $20/hr at Factory A rather than staying healthy at $10/hr in the filtered, fume-free workplace of Factory B. And if taking the job at Factory B means only half your kids get to eat, that's tough. A wonderful philosophical argument for the well-heeled but it completely denies the reality of millions of people in the US and worldwide who take the jobs they can get to survive. That's the real world where public policy is made and implemented, not a junior associate professor's office at Frostburg State. If the building you work in now develops a toxic air conditioning problem and management refuses to fix it, will you just quit and find another job? In today's job market? All decisions like this involve drawing lines of compromise. Abstract arguments are useless for policymakers (much like the earlier piece that used two cases to indict all law enforcement and ignored thousands of cases where police and others risked their lives to save others). Reductio ad absurdum arguments are for cheap late night talk show hosts. They wouldn't get a B- from a professor at most universities, or the school of real life.