Do Americans Workers Have Sufficient Rights?

So my and your atheism towards Zeus is a religion?

 

You're not even reading what I wrote. I said that rights are determined by society. The Founding Fathers had a nice philosophy, but it was no more or less authoritative than anything else of the day. It's just an idea that we all really like to believe in.

Btw, if you believe that rights are "God-given" and that no government can issue them or take them away, then surely you acknowledge the rights of illegals. Yes?

 

Right, because the only thing keeping little children from working in factories fourteen hours a day is having six week vacations and insurmountable barriers to eliminating useless deadweight from the payroll.

 

Yes, they have the right to life, liberty, and property, in their own ******ned country, not this one.

 

Mandating these eliminates many entry level jobs. A shopkeep who would hire someone to clean and organize part time is more likely to just forget about it if they have to provide all that. A job someone could've used to suppliment their income, instead doesnt exist at all.

Additionally, this puts a far greater burden on small business that lack bureacratic infrastructure than it does large corporations. The result is less competition for the large corporations, increasing their monopolistic grip on the market.

 

I am with you on both. What is fair pay? Can be a very arbitrary answer. Many variables go into that answer of which some, perhaps half are up to the employee.

 

Then we would need to focus on what does merit the focus of your attention. Perhaps knitting socks. You might pursue that religiously. Madam Murray O hare was an atheist. She zealously pursued persecuting those of faith in God to bring attention to her own faith. That was religion.

 

They do that in Communist countries. What worries you about that here?

 

I think Kamalya has a problem with personal responsibility and freedom. So it is with collectivists!

 

Our belief that Zeus is not real , yes it's part of our religion yes.

 

Rights are not determined by society. The founding fathers had it dead on right.
All men were created equal with certain inalienable rights among which are...


Yes absolutely illegal aliens have rights. It's too bad their home countries are so horrible that thoes rights are taken from them.

You see thoes rights are inherent in every human being on the planet just because a country's evil government doesn't acknowledge them doesn't mean the people don't have them.

 

I'm sorry, but your rights are determined by society. The Founding Fathers had a nice belief, but it's not how the real world works. The Founding Fathers' humanism was a wonderful thing, though.

 

You don't "believe something isn't real." You don't believe something is real. It's a matter of belief versus non-belief, and that's an important distinction to make. Otherwise, you would need to proactively qualify every single such belief, which is absurd.

 

If you follow free-market Republicanism to its its logical end, such a scenario can easily occur because, according to you, government is evil and regulation must be stopped.

 

No. You're struggling with this, so let me explain.

My lack of belief in [insert whichever deity here] is no more a religion than is my lack of collecting pebbles a hobby. If someone is passionate about the importance of collecting shiny pebbles, would he be correct in calling my lack of desire in collecting pebbles a hobby?

I don't give a damn about your religion. Just don't force it into my face or into our schools and there won't be a problem.

 

Belief or unbelief it doesn't matter. What you believe makes up your religion.
Everyone has a religion and according to our constitution no one's religion can be dominant over anyone elses.

When the founding fathers wrote the first ammendment they were largely interested in keeping one Christian sect from dominating other, but it does in fact cover all religions. Even the deists had predominantly Christian idea of morality.

 

Here's what I think is fair:

The highest-paid member of a company (typically the CEO and other board members) cannot be paid more than a certain percentage of the lowest-earning member of the company. And all members of a company would be offered stock options, from the CEO to the janitor who scrubs his private office toilet.

Radical idea, huh?

And I guarantee you that, if this were implemented, wealth would be much more evenly distributed within a generation. Instead of having a CEO earning tens of millions per year while the lowly workers who create his wealth struggle to eat, quality of life would improve for everyone.

I mean, imagine if the CEO of Disney couldn't earn more than, say, 1,000% of the salary of the lowly janitor who cleans puke on the rollercoaster at Disney World. Sure, the janitor doesn't have as much responsibility as the CEO, but imagine a park with no janitors. Imagine a McDonalds with no burger flipper. Imagine a store with no stocker. All these lowly workers would have a much larger chunk of the wealth they help create.

 

No. You're still not getting it. My atheism is not a religion anymore than your non-collecting of shiny pebbles is a hobby.

Are you a hobbyist non-pebble collector? Are you passionate about your hobby of not collecting pebbles?

 

So then laws based on Atheism would be constitutional? Or hell even laws against it.
If it's not a religion it has no first amendment protection.

 

You believe by faith that there is no god, therefore that is your religious belief.
You just think not calling it what it is gives it credibility.

 

I don't think it's fair that professional football players should get paid millions of dollars a year while protesting the country that is paying them all that money while college football players make millions of dollars for their colleges while not collecting a dime. But you know what? That's the free market for you. My opinion on what is fair or unfair doesn't mean a damn thing to the free market, and neither does yours. Why does the CEO of Disney make 100, 1,000, 10,000 times as much as the janitor? Because he's worth 100, 1,000, 10,000 times as much as the janitor. The janitor is essentially a dead loss to the company. He does not bring in $1 of profit. The CEO, on the other hand, brings in billions of dollars of profit to the company, if he's a good one. If he's not a good one, the company goes broke. The CEO gets paid what he gets paid because the board and the stockholders think he's worth that much. If you don't like it, convince the board and the stockholders that they shouldn't be paying him that much. Don't try to cripple the free market to fit your personal opinion about what is fair or unfair.

By the way, what do you think would happen to the top CEO's in the US if they couldn't make what they make here? You think maybe companies in other countries would snatch them up and suddenly American companies wouldn't be competitive on the world market anymore because all the top CEO's were working for foreign companies? Hmmmmm??? The free market doesn't just rule the roost here in the US, it rules the roost in a good part of the world. As long as American companies are being led by the best of the best, American companies are going to continue to dominate the world market.

"Total shareholder return has jumped 414 percent during Iger's tenure, and Disney's market capitalization has climbed to $156 billion from $46 billion, Lewis added."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/disney-shareholders-vote-against-ceo-igers-pay-package.html

Iger has increased Disney's value $110 billion but you are worried about him making $36 million a year. Pffft. Guy is underpaid if you ask me.

 

It sounds nice, a wonderful idea on paper. Thank you for the detail. I don't believe it is practical given our current state of evolution.
I am not a fan of limits to what people can make. It is counter to our predatory nature and would stifle innovation. Which actually in my mind might be a good thing. We have reached a point where we don't have the proportionate level of self responsibility to handle the technology we have. I am stuck in a paradox here.

We have a system now that allows the Janitor to become the CEO should he or she have the desire. What we can do better is create a more level playing field for the disadvantaged to achieve their desires.
First we need to stop with the absurd notion that we are all created equal. We are not. We come into this world with distinct physical, mental and socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages. We can do better in creating more equal opportunity for those who are disadvantaged without holding back those with advantage.

 

I see your problem. You want to equate faith or belief with religion. This may come as a shock to you. Religion does not corner the market on faith and belief. Religion requires faith and/or belief but they are not exclusive to religion. I will sometimes refer to ideology as being "religious like" for the zeal that some put into it. Ideology does require belief and even some amount of faith but they are not religions.

I am curious why you desire to equate atheism as a religion? It isn't even necessary. You can make a stronger connection by the fact that both religion and atheism require belief. They are directly opposing beliefs.

 

It's not about holding anyone back. It's about preventing capitalstic parasites from using people.

 

This is all circular reasoning. Free-market capitalism is inherently evil, in my opinion.