welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What is feminism anyway?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Valerie



Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 263

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BiQ wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Eww, and apparently in Arkasas and Georgia, you only have to pay minimum if you have so many employees. How is anyone going to want to work at a small business with that going on?


Maybe it beats being unemployed? Someone could even say it's a capitalistic power structure being unfavorable for the employees...

(Disclaimer: I have no idea at all how hard it is being unemployed in anywhere outside of my nordic welfare state country is)


Man, I dunno, I think I might rather be unemployed if they're paying me less than $5/hour. Maybe if you live in an area were everything is CRAZY-CHEAP, I guess.

But really, if I'm going to starve to death anyway, I might as well spend my time not-working. =/
_________________
Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

Chat About
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10681
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WA's minimum wage is tied to inflation. We didn't used to have the highest minimum wage, it just so happens that most states let their minimum wage stagnate and thus the purchasing power of those making it diminishes over time. Unfortunately, nowhere have wages actually kept up, which is how you end up with this.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3281
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was in North Carolina, not Texas, and that was a couple years ago. It's changed now. Some states are below the minimum. Here is a handy dandy map of minimum wages in the US:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

That rent map is depressing. I've known plenty of people who worked multiple jobs to be able to afford living. I get by on very few hours, which I can do because I have no kids, no car, and no major illnesses. Just barely making it, though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1096
Location: Chamber of the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminister

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zhuinden wrote:
After reading through the thread, I think I'm even more confused than before. Feminism vs "gender egalitarianism", what?


They are words. One is more specific than the other.

Some people hate the one, other people hate the other.

The only thing these people do not have in common is that some of them (feminists) are certain that gender politics throughout history have resulted largely in the subjugation of women, whereas the others (egalitarians) either are certain of the exact same thing and just call themselves something else, or might be certain if they knew more, and find the word more suitable to describe themselves with until they learn what they need to know.

The thing is that most of these people are functionally identical. They want the same ends, they recognize the same problems, and they come up with the same solutions to those problems. The disagreements between these people seem petty and unnecessary to me- and they waste time.
_________________
Skipper of the Chipper Clipper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tekii



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
I was in North Carolina, not Texas, and that was a couple years ago. It's changed now. Some states are below the minimum. Here is a handy dandy map of minimum wages in the US:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

That rent map is depressing. I've known plenty of people who worked multiple jobs to be able to afford living. I get by on very few hours, which I can do because I have no kids, no car, and no major illnesses. Just barely making it, though.


Why are they so low in some places? Does the government give excuses or is it just a 'this is how it is, take it or leave it' type view?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lol



Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smooshie wrote:
I think the problem here is a difference of definition. I don't see fighting for equality/justice and social justice as being the same thing. Social justice is, at best, a short-term thing, and it's usually reflexive, from what I've seen, and instead of going against the status quo to effect change, people are mean because they think they are right (maybe they are) and then they only derive personal satisfaction from it. What you call social justice, I call equality.

I really have to disagree here. You're labeling character traits of people. There is nothing about social justice that requires being an asshole.

It'd be like me saying "Most Christians I know are ignorant bigots. I define Christianity as worshipping Jesus while being an ignorant bigot." It's faulty logic.

Social justice is a larger concept than just "equality", as we typically use it. It's more than short-term goals too. In the academic work I've seen, the proponents usually discuss permanent, revolutionary change to society. Some examples are scholars like Sayyid Qutb, Slavoj Zizek, or the people I mentioned in my other post. I don't necessarily agree with all their stances, especially Qutb's religious based arguments, but your view of social justice seems more reflective of a certain crowd rather than the concept itself.

Maybe you just ran into an arrogant group of people?
aboutwhistles wrote:
Have you perhaps considered that opression and exploitation and abuse are legitimate things to be angry about?

This is a good point. There was someone, totally forgot his name, that pointed out that objectivity is only ever used against the oppressed.

Basically, it's easy for the privileged to tell the oppressed "Hey, let's be reasonable about this. No need to get angry", all the while benefitting from the system that hurts another group.

It's disgusting sentiment, and completely ignores the fact that suffering groups are justifiably angry.


Last edited by lol on Fri May 10, 2013 9:45 pm; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1096
Location: Chamber of the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminister

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe there's a theory about minimum wage correlating to unemployment if it gets too far above or below a certain point that a lot of economists buy into that results in that sort of decision, but I don't really know much about it, or how exactly it works.

I'm not very knowledgeable about economics.
_________________
Skipper of the Chipper Clipper


Last edited by Istancow on Fri May 10, 2013 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3281
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tekii wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
I was in North Carolina, not Texas, and that was a couple years ago. It's changed now. Some states are below the minimum. Here is a handy dandy map of minimum wages in the US:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

That rent map is depressing. I've known plenty of people who worked multiple jobs to be able to afford living. I get by on very few hours, which I can do because I have no kids, no car, and no major illnesses. Just barely making it, though.


Why are they so low in some places? Does the government give excuses or is it just a 'this is how it is, take it or leave it' type view?


There are a few ideas. One is that the poor are immoral and wasteful and somehow anything that can be done to hurt them will motivate them to become rich.

The other one that is used most in regard to minimum wage is that businesses can't function if they have to offer high pay to their workers. I've heard the same people who decry the existence of minimum wage because of this idea later being shocked that there are people who have to live off $10.00 an hour. Like...what would you expect businesses to do if you don't have a minimum wage?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is complicated for sure. Economically, yeah if you increase salaries, not all businesses will get hurt, but some businesses really do just barely skate by some times. The problem usually is that if you increase the cost to have employees, more employers who are not equipped to handle it will end up having to fire employees for awhile until they get the increased rate under control and their business picks up.

And that's how
Istancow wrote:
I believe there's a theory about minimum wage correlating to unemployment if it gets too far above or below a certain point that a lot of economists buy into that results in that sort of decision, but I don't really know much about it, or how exactly it works.

This is really just the case because too many businesses either try to push for more growth before they're ready, and others fall into the same problem as MANY things in our society...The people running it are human, and because of that, many that are in those positions aren't actually equipped with the skills to manage or prepare for that. Many aren't running so far above cost like huge chain stores are (Wal-Mart, etc) that they know how to handle the spike. They simply know that if they're costing more to run through wages then they're making, they cut people. When profits go back up, they hire more.

So higher minimum wage will often hit some places with a bit of a rise in unemployment for a short time. Sometimes it's VERY short. Sometimes it's longer. It's completely up to what our economy does at the time and how quickly more money from higher wages flows back into the system. It's exactly for that reason though that the government doesn't like to increase the rate during depressed economic times though, also why they like to do it slowly.

Inevitably though, raising minimum wage does also cause inflation as well, particularly in our new consumer age where so many people are selling stuff. When people get more money, some corporation is ready to sell SOMETHING to take that money. So things don't go on sale as much, new products get pushed out, and companies begin to try to expand, hiring new employees. Then unemployment goes down, stocks rise, and everything is good! Until corporations sell so much at higher and higher rates that it begins to plateau, pay people too much, especially high importance employees, (and sometimes we increase minimum wage as goods have gotten more expensive) and the economy starts to stagnate leading to slightly less profits, where they let a few employees go, which leads to un-employment rising then onward back to a kind of cycle.

And this is the cycle I was taught ALL about in my economics courses in college...that it's "natural" and the way things are. However, what they never seem to pay attention to is a few things:

1. Inflation has been being caused such that it is leaving behind minimum wage.

2. The cycle gets seemingly more and more chaotic each time. And times like now are well beyond what economists expect in length of depression.

Annnnd....I was going to list more, but this is getting long. I just haven't talked economics in a couple months with anyone, so I kind of got carried away.

Anyway, the issue now is that we have pushed inflation so much that wages haven't kept up. And now we're at a time when they need to CATCH up, but unfortunately I don't believe you can simply raise them to $15 like we've seen the big push for. A jump like that IS GREATLY NEEDED. But, with so MANY employers un-prepared to compensate for such a jump, the amount of unemployment that would cause mixed with the possible increase in cost of goods as people get more money and corporations get greedy might lead to a worse situation even. Maybe better. It's all going to be how it's handled by the government. I really doubt minimum wage will go up that much, as unless they put some big measures in to safeguard such, most employers won't handle it well for the time needed for things to stabilize. I honestly don't know HOW it should be handled though.

The only true way to stop over-inflation is to get wages up and NOT have everyone over-spend (hard to do when you finally feel happy and want to enjoy your life a bit) or corporations NOT be money-hungry to sell more, since they know their competitors are doing the same. On the other hand, the wealthy just get more wealthy through all this. Everything keeps stocks overall on the rise. And it's REALLY easy to make money when you have it that way. I know how someone that came into about ten million could put all that in smart investments and is taking about 2-300 thousand a year just from that. So, if you've got money, it's EASY to make money. And yet, that doesn't make you necessarily smart. So if you have a business, you hire people trying to expand and...TADAH! You're not ready for the downward economic hit (whether something like a housing crash or from minimum wage's increase) and...we're back to the problem again! Yay!! The real sad thing is that if people WOUDLN'T cut people when the market was temporarily down for whatever reason, the market would recover QUICKER. But stock investers cause corporations to feel they have to make cuts, or else their stocks will fall and...yeaaaaah.


Okay seriously done this time. I've wrote way too much and even though I could probably continue ranting for my own purpose of venting about stupid people in places of power, but I don't expect anyone to read this as it is. =P
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes I at least half-seriously think that we should kick all the politicians off of the committees who decide these things, and replace them with the game-design folks from Bioware.

No, really, think about that for a bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1096
Location: Chamber of the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminister

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read it all. And now I know more than I did before about what I was referencing. Thank you, good sir.

I should really take an economics course. I feel like I would enjoy it.
_________________
Skipper of the Chipper Clipper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Sometimes I at least half-seriously think that we should kick all the politicians off of the committees who decide these things, and replace them with the game-design folks from Bioware.

No, really, think about that for a bit.

Oh yeah! No, I completely agree! Really the problem with government is that most of the people there are ill-prepared for the demands. Much brighter minds (and less impressive public speakers) are there than we find in government. To me, that's why I think there should be like a huge 3-5000 question test over important things (such as economics) that the public gets to see the results of for electing people to office. Sure, personality and beliefs should probably still a big factor too, but knowing they're smart enough to handle the position or not would prevent a LOT of stupid decision. Wink
Istancow wrote:
I read it all. And now I know more than I did before about what I was referencing. Thank you, good sir.

I should really take an economics course. I feel like I would enjoy it.

Haha thanks for taking the time! And yeah, an economics course is always fun, especially if you're not doing it for some college degree requirements. Less stressful. You can find some good online video series as well. Of course, always keep in mind there may be some bias with any instructor. They each have their own favorite economic methods (as seen by one of mine who LOVED the cycle of up and down how well it worked...so he said), but it still helps to learn how it all works. Very Happy
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1096
Location: Chamber of the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminister

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should establish the American Imperial Exam! And all who wish to serve the bearer of the Mandate of the Electoral College as magistrates and officials must first be tested for qualities fitting of an effective, yet ethical statesman.

And then once we have brought ourselves out of our temporary period of economic instability, we shall usher in the Han Dynasty of the United States! A golden age to last about three centuries before falling into a period of unrest that will be ended by a swiftly consolidating, rigid, authoritarian fifteen year dynasty which will collapse and give way to another three hundred year dynasty which will decay an-

I'm sorry. Got a bit carried away there. My father is Chinese, and I get excited when I start talking about Chinese history.

And that strange pattern of Short and Long dynasties broken up by periods of unrest and civil war that China has had...
_________________
Skipper of the Chipper Clipper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3281
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At the very least, we could hav cometent advisors in things like economics and science. I would go for that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17121
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we've _got_ competent advisers. the problem is, the politicians don't listen to them - they listen to the people who give them lots of money for their campaigns.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group