Socialist Group Fights for $20/hr minnimum wage! Advertises for $13/hr Web Developer.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Sometimes, it's just so offensive that anyone disagree with you that you have to refer to every last one of them as "useful idiots". :rolleyes:

But anyway, what does hoarding mean? That they're doing something with the money they rightfully and legally earned of which you disapprove?

Tell you what. You produce a gadget that changes the world of communication. Go and tell every person who voluntarily and enthusiastically purchased any i-device that their money would've been better given to you in your magnanimity. Then you can do whatever you want with your billions. How's that?

False equivalence.

But thanks for lending weight to his well written and thought out points.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
Reason Magazine
According to the party's last presidential platform, these self-described Marxists want:

"jobs program at union wages with childcare available"
"no cuts to Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare.
Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour.
Provide a guaranteed annual income.
Free medical care for all, including reproductive services and abortion."

Reason contacted the party and confirmed that the listing is legitimate, and that in spite of the party's commitment to unionizing laborers, the available position is not a union job. Don't count on any of those other sweet benefits either, part-timer.

The Freedom Socialist Party applauded the push for a $15 minimum wage in Seattle earlier this year, stating that the city is unlivable otherwise, "compromise destroys solidarity," that the party must "leave no one behind."

For their own web developer position, they neither offer $20/hr nor do they offer union membership or benefits.

Yet, they think that Seattle is unlivable otherwise. That "compromise destroys solidarity." And that the party must "leave no one behind."

No one, that is, except their own web developer.

Uno
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
Imagine working for Apple and being turned down for a raise. That would be funny. You know they can afford it, so the only thing it could mean is "you aren't worth another red cent to us".
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
It means not spending it. This is basic English. Whether what they were doing is legal was never mentioned, nor is it relevant to the topic of whether it is good for the economy. Neither was whether they rightfully earned it, because again, not relevant to the topic under discussion.

Not spending money is not hoarding. Me putting money in a savings account is not hoarding, and that money does get put to use by the bank in which the money resides. Are you claiming that Apple literally has stacks of cash stuffed in mattresses? Because otherwise it's been put in an investment of some kind, and that means it is put to use.

None of this has anything to do with the minimum wage nor whether a person who under the current pay system pays less than a minimum wage they propose for a hypothetical system is hypocritical.

...yet you brought up Apple's hoarding of money to prove a point about minimum wage...?

Nobody said Apple doesn't have a right under the current system to do what they are doing, nobody even said it wasn't in there best interests, hell, nobody even said Apple didn't earn the money it made or that it didn't deserve it. They were merely held up as an example of a company that has taken money out of the economy because they have chosen not to pay the money back in in the forms of wages or purchases or even investment, nothing more.

You're claiming that Apple, the company which created the iPhone, has taken more out of the economy than it has put in?

That might require some sourcing considering all the people Apple has given jobs, all the people who benefit from its products, all the people employed as app developers for iPhone and other smartphones that sprung up to compete with the iPhone, and on and on and on.
 
Last edited:

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Not spending money is not hoarding. Me putting money in a savings account is not hoarding, and that money does get put to use by the bank in which the money resides. Are you claiming that Apple literally has stacks of cash stuffed in mattresses? Because otherwise it's been put in an investment of some kind, and that means it is put to use.
They have around 8.5 billion in cash, another 40 in cash equivalents as I recall.

...yet you brought up Apple's hoarding of money to prove a point about minimum wage...?
To demonstrate that money is being taken out of the economy that could otherwise be put back in to raise standards of living, stimulate spending, etc. To demonstrate that some concentrations of wealth have become so large the owners literally have nothing to do with them and that this in turn is a brake on economic growth.

You're claiming that Apple, the company which created the iPhone, has taken more out of the economy than it has put in?

That might require some sourcing considering all the people Apple has given jobs, all the people who benefit from its products, all the people employed as app developers for iPhone and other smartphones that sprung up to compete with the iPhone, and on and on and on.

I will source that claim as soon as you source where I made the claim in the first place. This is a strawman.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
What web developer would accept $13 an hour? As an actual web developer, I'm offended they would even offer something that low. The most basic entry level positions are like $23 an hour (if my math is correct, assuming around $50k a year).
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
What web developer would accept $13 an hour? As an actual web developer, I'm offended they would even offer something that low. The most basic entry level positions are like $23 an hour (if my math is correct, assuming around $50k a year).
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You don't *need* more than $13 an hour, comrade.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Reason Magazine


For their own web developer position, they neither offer $20/hr nor do they offer union membership or benefits.

Yet, they think that Seattle is unlivable otherwise. That "compromise destroys solidarity." And that the party must "leave no one behind."

No one, that is, except their own web developer.

Uno

If it bothers you so much where you have to essentially post the same thing twice why don't you ask the socialist party yourself?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Let 's try and make this easy for you.

1) person asks for confirmation of a claim made in thread.

2) I look up the answer and post the relevant information directly from source, making no comment due to a comment not being needed as this is simply supplying direct information.

3) Matt turns up and posts meaningless, out of context comment as a reply to my posting of said information.

4) I point out meaningless comment is meaningless.

5) Matt goes anti-Canadian for the umpteenth time and makes a fool of himself which he continues to do.

Are we having fun yet?

1. You make a post with Socialist Party Platform.
2. I comment on Platform, I just decided to click on the quote button rather than copy and paste the platform and add the quote code.
3. 10,000 posts later you still don't seem to get it had nothing to do with you.
4. Making fun of Canada is mandatory.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,475
6,896
136
Why would that matter? If they want $20/hr for the minimum wage then all discussions on whether this is a part time job or for someone with minimal skills is irrelevant because any job would need to start at &$20 regardless of hours or skills

Only because a whole lot of folks in this thread posted about the second significant part of the OP's thread title ($13/hr) to bash on the "socialist" group, of which that second part of the thread title is either factually incorrect or utilized in a rather disingenuous fashion.

That the OP hasn't corrected the thread title with this knowledge only exacerbates this....shall we give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say "unintentional error"?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Only because a whole lot of folks in this thread posted about the second significant part of the OP's thread title ($13/hr) to bash on the "socialist" group, of which that second part of the thread title is either factually incorrect or utilized in a rather disingenuous fashion.

That the OP hasn't corrected the thread title with this knowledge only exacerbates this....shall we give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say "unintentional error"?

WTF are you talking about. I am a big supporter of increased minimum wage but this group hypocrisy is extreme. Nothing the OP posted was wrong, this group demands $20 wages for McDonalds workers and does this is hypocrisy. You are blind if you can't see that.
 
Last edited:

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
WTF are you talking about. I am a big supporter of increased minimum wage but this group hypocrisy is extreme. Nothing the OP posted was wrong, this group demands $20 wages for McDonalds workers and does this is hypocrisy. You are blind if you can't see that.

According to the article in the OP they were demanding $20 for minimum wage workers, not McDonalds workers.

Now given that the minimum wage hasn't been increased to that, it isn't hypocritical for them to offer a wage lower than that.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
According to the article in the OP they were demanding $20 for minimum wage workers, not McDonalds workers.

Now given that the minimum wage hasn't been increased to that, it isn't hypocritical for them to offer a wage lower than that.
LOL!

That's eskimospy-level spin! Good show!
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
According to the article in the OP they were demanding $20 for minimum wage workers, not McDonalds workers.

Now given that the minimum wage hasn't been increased to that, it isn't hypocritical for them to offer a wage lower than that.

They feel that no worker should be paid less than $20.

Then why are they offering $13/hr
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,781
1,386
126
They feel that no worker should be paid less than $20.

Then why are they offering $13/hr

you are just wasting your energy....

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible...
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
you are just wasting your energy....

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible...


Um.... it is a political advocacy group. I am suprised that would offer any salary at all. A person should do it out of a love of the cause not for something as crass as a wage.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
According to the article in the OP they were demanding $20 for minimum wage workers, not McDonalds workers.

Now given that the minimum wage hasn't been increased to that, it isn't hypocritical for them to offer a wage lower than that.

You are wrong, McDonald workers are part of the minimum wage workers, and they demanded $20 for them as well.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Sometimes, it's just so offensive that anyone disagree with you that you have to refer to every last one of them as "useful idiots". :rolleyes:

But anyway, what does hoarding mean? That they're doing something with the money they rightfully and legally earned of which you disapprove?

Tell you what. You produce a gadget that changes the world of communication. Go and tell every person who voluntarily and enthusiastically purchased any i-device that their money would've been better given to you in your magnanimity. Then you can do whatever you want with your billions. How's that?
You'd have to triple his IQ for it to be offensive. As things stand, it's merely expected and kind of sad.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You don't *need* more than $13 an hour, comrade.
lol +1

You don't need more than $13 an hour if we're paying, comrade. If other people are paying, then you need $20 an hour, and we fully support you in your righteous struggle.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
They feel that no worker should be paid less than $20.

Then why are they offering $13/hr

They feel that the legally mandated minimum wage should be $20.

Currently the legally mandated minimum wage is not $20.

So it isn't hypocritical.

All the people going on about it being hypocritical are using a fallacious argument anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.
 
Last edited: