"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left
were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees,
even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere.

I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a
category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far
deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it.


You
have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the
principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting
the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to
some level higher.

No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave.


Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that
exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not
be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be
nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the
work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes
with it, if the reward is not much better.

Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired
wage scales as they apply to different skill levels?

Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU.
A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as
a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a
hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning
supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has
some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the
urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week
without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports
bar on Superbowl Sunday.

So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary.

Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist
forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well
now, and they never will be.

Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such
people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used
car, and have a kid or two.

You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True.
But, they'll have to be replaced, right? But, some people actually like
cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people. And they may
prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures
of other people. So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation,
their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such
a bad thing? That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that
many medical specialists make, don't you think?

Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they
like?