homeless people

[ada]

The other day I saw a homeless (and probably mentally ill) person sleeping on the street in front of a department store display window which contained an oppulent and luxurious bedroom.

Then I learn that a park in LA has made it an offence to feed the homeless.

Apparently vans that provide free meals to the homeless people who sleep in the park have been banned from serving food to them.

It only attracts homeless people, authorities say.

what?

Where's our compassion?

[gilad]

it is the same with the government here. they hire private security companies to evict 100's of squaters from old abandoned properties. they force them to live/die on the street, but do nothing to help them.

[pianistimo]

i saw a sad sight the other day on the bike trail.  this emaciated man (and i mean emaciated) was curled up next to one bike wheel.  there was a sign on the bike wheel that said 'for sale' but no price.  if i'd had some money i would have bought the wheel just to make him feel good.  why is it when i don't have any extra money - is when i see these people?  sometime we should just go cruising with a load of money and throw it out the window.  it might make someone's day.

[zheer]

   Am starting to see or notice more and more homeless people on streets, parks and trains, some of them look really ill almost dead and others   seem ok. apparently a number of X soliders after surving in the army end up on the streets, teenagers run away from home if they are being abused, the mentally ill usually and understandable is unable to deal with things that most take for granted. However i think a lot is drink and drugs related, so giving these types of people money is always a bad idea.
         

[penguinlover]

Yeah, I never give them money (like I ever have it!)  But what I do is feed them or put them up in a hotel for a night.  Money given to them seems to be spent in the wrong way, just making their problem worse.  I see a lot of people that I am sure would not be homeless if they would just clean up their act.  I guess there are the legit homeless people, just down on their luck.  These are the people that are actually looking for work and not just a handout.  Maybe it's wrong, but I am much more inclined to help these people out.  I pray my compassion never dulls, or my heart harden for these people.

[freakofnature]

Where's our compassion?

We live in a capitalistic world - there's no room for compassion anymore, it just disturbs the need of making more money...

Sad truth that is...

[pianistimo]

i think we do have compassion - but it has to be more consistent these days.  we can't grow dull - as penguinlover says.  there are more and more homeless people and bad weather catastrophes have made it worse. 

a few places around pennsylvania, there are farms and restaurants that donate food to homeless people on a regular basis.  it's a biblical principle to be aware of those in need and take care of their needs.  perhaps turning something that is a small work into a bigger work - takes getting the word out to both the donator and donee. 

back in california there was 'grace resources' which would take donated clothing and donations of food - and had specific days where people in need could come and pick things out and eat a few meals.  i think it was every other day.  it was linked to a church i think.  since churches are the most likely to help the homeless on a long term basis - i don't understand all the recent tax stuff.  i think charities should remain tax exempt.  after all -it's not like they have so many resources in the first place (being donations).

there was another place that took recent freed prison inmates and taught them life skills for free.  carpentry specifically.  they would build temporary shelters for hurricane victims and feel a sense of victory over their drug addictions or whatever by helping others themselves.  this sounded like a good idea to me. 

you can bring a horse to water - but some don't want to drink.  the handout is easier.  on the other hand - some people fall on hard times.  you can usually weed the two from each other and perhaps not forget one over the other by helping both in different ways.  the mentally ill really need someone to just care for them sometimes without expecting much.  sort of guide them along a way that would protect them and get them back closer to family if they have any.  just a kind face, a smile, and someone who cares.

[bella musica]

My Dad always buys food for people who ask him for money.  Once he gave a guy a $20 bill and told him to use it for food or clothes, not alcohol.  The guy looked my Dad straight in the eye and said he would do that, then he turned around and walked right into a bar.

Like we learned from Hurricane Katrina, there are people out there who will take advantage of your compassion.  There were hundreds of people who claimed to be victims of Katrina and really weren't.  They raked in thousands of dollars that should have rightfully gone to people who were in desperate need of food and supplies.

However, I would rather give money to someone who didn't need it by accident, than not give it to someone who really did need it.

[BoliverAllmon]

My church is located very close to a major intersection where many homeless people stand and solicit money for food. We have helped alot of them, but have found out this. There are alot of things out there to help them, if they are not using them there is a big reason. THe local shelters won't take anyone in who has drug or alcohol problems. So the guys on the corner are there for a reason, not just bad luck.

boliver

[da jake]

I think homeless people should be made to do something constructive with their lives. There should be "Bum ACTION Teams" that get paid by the city to clean up parks, streets etc.

[BoliverAllmon]

I think homeless people should be made to do something constructive with their lives. There should be "Bum ACTION Teams" that get paid by the city to clean up parks, streets etc.

that sounds good, but in reality I doubt it works.

[penguinlover]

My church offers clothes and food, but only for a few days.  After a while, the stories all sound the same.  The "repeaters" forget where they have been, and you really do hear the same story again, or more elaborated!  Grace Resources is nearby too.  We all need to work together to help those less fortunate.  That entails much more than food and clothes.  As pianistmo said, teaching life skills etc.  is a start.  It is a daunting task.  For me, I need to remember that it is not up to me to judge why the person is where they are, my job is just to love and help them.

[BoliverAllmon]

I feel like helping those that want help. unfortunately alot don't want it.

[penguinlover]

Ain't that the truth, brother!

[BoliverAllmon]

yes it is

[ada]

Interesting that the christian types here are the least compassionate. It seems that religious zeal goes hand in hand with lack of humanity.

Boliver and penguinlover, you both say you are connected to churches yet you have attitudes that with all respect I don't find very christian.

Saying there are "legitimate homeless" as opposed to (what?) illegitimately homeless (?) and suggesting people are on the street because they somehow deserve it or brought it on themselves or "don't want to be helped" is in my mind arrogant and condescending and completely lacking in human empathy.

On second thoughts, I suppose those attitudes are TYPICALLY christian.

I'm not suggesting it's a matter of giving homeless people your loose change. I live in an area that's full of socially disadvantaged people and I don't give everyone money cos I simply wouldn't have enough to go around.

I guess my comments related to the inequities of western society and how as a society we collectively abandon those who don't have the backgrounds, the means or the skills to make it.

And why so down on drug addicts and alcoholics?

Addiction is a disease. Addicts aren't on the street for fun.

Most junkies who are on the street have been born in to dysfunctional families amongst generational unemployment and poverty. Many have been sexually and physically abused from a young age and are struggling with lack of education, social networks and mental illness.

How does that make them "illegitimately" homeless? How can someone who professes to be a christian look down at these people?

What exactly is a "legitimately" homeless person? I am sorry but I have never heard such nonsense.

[prometheus]

At least christians here are often compassionate. They are the core of the movement against the national government concerning 'illegal' people. I mean, how can you be an illegal person?


I think the government in Zimbabwe decided to destroy all the slums because they wanted to get rid of homeless people. The problem is now solved. No longer are any people homeless. What a great succes!

One city in my country was able to outlaw begging. I find there things kind of strange.

[BoliverAllmon]

Interesting that the christian types here are the least compassionate. It seems that religious zeal goes hand in hand with lack of humanity.

Boliver and penguinlover, you both say you are connected to churches yet you have attitudes that with all respect I don't find very christian.

Saying there are "legitimate homeless" as opposed to (what?) illegitimately homeless (?) and suggesting people are on the street because they somehow deserve it or brought it on themselves or "don't want to be helped" is in my mind arrogant and condescending and completely lacking in human empathy.

On second thoughts, I suppose those attitudes are TYPICALLY christian.

I'm not suggesting it's a matter of giving homeless people your loose change. I live in an area that's full of socially disadvantaged people and I don't give everyone money cos I simply wouldn't have enough to go around.

I guess my comments related to the inequities of western society and how as a society we collectively abandon those who don't have the backgrounds, the means or the skills to make it.

And why so down on drug addicts and alcoholics?

Addiction is a disease. Addicts aren't on the street for fun.

Most junkies who are on the street have been born in to dysfunctional families amongst generational unemployment and poverty. Many have been sexually and physically abused from a young age and are struggling with lack of education, social networks and mental illness.

How does that make them "illegitimately" homeless? How can someone who professes to be a christian look down at these people?

What exactly is a "legitimately" homeless person? I am sorry but I have never heard such nonsense.

I work hands on with many homeless people. Addiction is a disease, but until the person wants to be healed from the disease it is pointless. I am not against homeless people at all. there are people who fall on hard times. I help them all the time, the thing is I don't have all the resources to help everyone just like you said, therefore I have to pick and choose. I choose to help those that want help and are willing to work, not those that are not willing to work to make something of themselves.

boliver

[penguinlover]

I guess this is to ada,

   It breaks my heart to hear your animosity towards Christians. I am not perfect.  I try not to do anything that would bring a bad name to Christians.  So, if I came across as a hard-hearted, pious, self-righteous, arrogant know it all, I am sorry.  I have to work on treating all beggars and homeless people with genuine compassion.  When I get attitudes like you suggested, I have failed.  Of course, and I won't preach here, but I have no power on my own to have this kind of love.  But God does, and I hope to let Him guide me in sharing it.

[ada]

Aw penguinlover don't take it so hard. I know you are a good person. It's just me being me. Ask pianistimo  .

But for the record I do think many christians are hard hearted, pious, self-righteous and arrogant.

But not all 

[da jake]

They're helping people because it makes them feel good. Everyone benefits.

[Kassaa]

In a game called Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, I gave an homeless guy some money, after that he got punched to death by two other homeless guys because he had money. I think money is not the solution for the problem, the best thing is making them useful for the society and giving them a bed, food and clothes, but it's very difficult to manage since a lot of homeless people are addicts, and most of them even don't want food.

When I was on a trip to Cincinnati with my mother, some homeless guy almost humped us, asking for money, my mother wanted to give him a croissant instead, he didn't accept the croissant, looking rather angry.

[da jake]

Hey, have you ever played Star Wars Episode I the Phantom Menace for PC?

In the Coruscant level, Captain Panaka is forced to take a dangerous trek through the lower levels of the city. One of the bums inhabiting the alleys asked me for some republic credits. I decided to shoot him with my blaster. It turned out that if you shoot one, the rest come after you with knives for the rest of the level. Smooth move on my part.

[Kassaa]

Hey, have you ever played Star Wars Episode I the Phantom Menace for PC?

In the Coruscant level, Captain Panaka is forced to take a dangerous trek through the lower levels of the city. One of the bums inhabiting the alleys asked me for some republic credits. I decided to shoot him with my blaster. It turned out that if you shoot one, the rest come after you with knives for the rest of the level. Smooth move on my part.

hahahaha nice one , but no, I have only played the KoTOR games, no other Star Wars stuff. First KoTOR was genius, second one a bit of a disappointement though.

[living_stradivarius]

The other day I saw a homeless (and probably mentally ill) person sleeping on the street in front of a department store display window which contained an oppulent and luxurious bedroom.

Then I learn that a park in LA has made it an offence to feed the homeless.

Apparently vans that provide free meals to the homeless people who sleep in the park have been banned from serving food to them.

It only attracts homeless people, authorities say.

what?

Where's our compassion?

Unfortunate, in the short term.
However, it is to encourage us with compassion then, to invest in better, more organized solutions for the poor (food centers).

[musik_man]

In a game called Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, I gave an homeless guy some money, after that he got punched to death by two other homeless guys because he had money.

Kreia also gets pissed at you even if you don't give money to the homeless guy.  What a b*tch.

[Kassaa]

Kreia also gets pissed at you even if you don't give money to the homeless guy.  What a b*tch.

Aye, I hate her, she's one of the reasons I only played through the game once, while I completed KoTOR1 like 6 times ^^. Also the ending of KotOR2 sucked arse.

[Derek]

I find it very disturbing when I read remarks that suggest capitalism causes homelessness. If anything it causes far less homelessness than any other system of government. The poor in the United States of america are vastly wealthier than the poor anywhere else in the world, and we have a far lower unemployment rate than many of the socialist countries in europe.  Now, what is better for homeless poor people? Capitalism or socialism? Look at the facts!

Please don't start harping on the "vast disparity" in wealth between the poor and the rich. Why should that matter? Why can't we just look at how well off the poor are? Anyway, do you really think that there is an endless continuum of grotesquely opulent lifestyle? No! Where does all that extra money go...back into the economy, new jobs, fewer homeless people, MORE WEALTH FOR EVERYONE.   

I'm not saying we shouldn't give to the poor---but I think that should be done entirely voluntarily---government should not put a cancerous tumor in the economy to try to help the poor---this ends up screwing them over!! WHY DON'T SOME OF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??

Basically the bottom line is, the poor man's best friend is the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs CREATE WEALTH! Government DOES NOT! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD AND THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.

[BoliverAllmon]

Aw penguinlover don't take it so hard. I know you are a good person. It's just me being me. Ask pianistimo  .

But for the record I do think many christians are hard hearted, pious, self-righteous and arrogant.

But not all 

As a Christian I think it is sad to say that you are right about the typical attitudes among Christians. Though I hope that I do not fall in the category, I do feel that a majority of people do.

boliver

[pianistimo]

good samaritans give just because.  they don't have a reason except maybe compassion.  i think they come from all walks of life and can be relgious or-non religious.  the thing is - i think we should all come together.  it seemed that 'grace resources' did that.  they accepted donations from and gave to people who were not always christian.  their way of preaching the gospel was to feed and clothe people. 

i think we doubt too much people's motivations.  if someone (as penguinlover) accidentally says something that sounds biased - it doesn't mean they are as a person.  only God knows our hearts.  any one of us could become homeless at any time.

[BoliverAllmon]

I find it very disturbing when I read remarks that suggest capitalism causes homelessness. If anything it causes far less homelessness than any other system of government. The poor in the United States of america are vastly wealthier than the poor anywhere else in the world, and we have a far lower unemployment rate than many of the socialist countries in europe.  Now, what is better for homeless poor people? Capitalism or socialism? Look at the facts!

Please don't start harping on the "vast disparity" in wealth between the poor and the rich. Why should that matter? Why can't we just look at how well off the poor are? Anyway, do you really think that there is an endless continuum of grotesquely opulent lifestyle? No! Where does all that extra money go...back into the economy, new jobs, fewer homeless people, MORE WEALTH FOR EVERYONE.   

I'm not saying we shouldn't give to the poor---but I think that should be done entirely voluntarily---government should not put a cancerous tumor in the economy to try to help the poor---this ends up screwing them over!! WHY DON'T SOME OF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??

Basically the bottom line is, the poor man's best friend is the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs CREATE WEALTH! Government DOES NOT! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD AND THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.

very very true.

[quasimodo]

I find it very disturbing when I read remarks that suggest capitalism causes homelessness. If anything it causes far less homelessness than any other system of government. The poor in the United States of america are vastly wealthier than the poor anywhere else in the world, and we have a far lower unemployment rate than many of the socialist countries in europe.  Now, what is better for homeless poor people? Capitalism or socialism? Look at the facts!

Please don't start harping on the "vast disparity" in wealth between the poor and the rich. Why should that matter? Why can't we just look at how well off the poor are? Anyway, do you really think that there is an endless continuum of grotesquely opulent lifestyle? No! Where does all that extra money go...back into the economy, new jobs, fewer homeless people, MORE WEALTH FOR EVERYONE.   

I'm not saying we shouldn't give to the poor---but I think that should be done entirely voluntarily---government should not put a cancerous tumor in the economy to try to help the poor---this ends up screwing them over!! WHY DON'T SOME OF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??

Basically the bottom line is, the poor man's best friend is the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs CREATE WEALTH! Government DOES NOT! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD AND THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.

What I find very disturbing is that someone apparently very intellectual and educated like you comes up with a so ridiculous speech. I'll blame it on your youth, but seriously you should go out and learn about the world; see what's actually going on out there.
First, there is no socialist country in Europe, that's just a typical narrow-minded point of view that I don't know whom brainwash you in the USA, The whole world is capitalist today, except maybe North-Korea. Even countries like China or Viet-Nam which are governed by so-called communist or revolutionary parties are, in actual facts, ran in a capitalist economic system, otherwise, believe me, no foreign investors would bother put a single dollar there.
Low unemployment rates in the USA are not due to the altruism of USA entrepreneurs or their super-efficiency or whatever; it is due to the US government and Federal Reserve's financial and monetary policies: low interest rates, low tax rates, low exchange rate for the dollar and every year going deeper in national public and private debt; indeed it's a strategy which works, at least currently but in the long run it makes USA very vulnerable to a major financial crisis and then you'll see how unemployment will sky-rocket. So your statement about irrelevance of government action in wealth creation is pretty mislead.
Now, about the “entrepreneur”, let me tell you something, I've worked all my career as a finance manager in private firms and the later years in a global one;  I can tell you that the goal of private firms is to you use as few employees as possible and at the lowest salary. Capitalism aims at rewarding the shareholders for their financial investment, so the less wages you have to pay the more you can satisfy them. Actually, just the announcement of a downsizing makes the stock exchange quotation improve. More and more, you will see the big players leave western countries, including USA, to use cheap labor in less developed, hence more “competitive” countries, especially in Asia and eastern Europe. For the moment it's mainly European countries which have to undergo the consequences, because they made the EURO currency error, but believe me, sooner or later, US economy will have the same problem, by the time the current financial/monetary strategy becomes not sustainable anymore. And it is inevitable, you cannot indefinitely maintain a “way of life” just by getting into more debt each and everyday.

[pianistimo]

being that quasimodo has been a financial manager - i readily believe what he is saying.  i actually think it is the motto of california companies in particular to rejoice at downsizing.  there are fewer and fewer companies that are not succumbing to a world view rather than a national view.  the unfortunate thing is (as we have experienced layoffs for no reason other than downsizing) that it doesn't promote employee trust and really makes the economy more unstable in the long run.  making money the #1 thing and people #2.

there are a few companies left (as with merck) that are 1/2 and 1/2 sort of.  they do invest in foreign labor  - but more evenly with usa labor.  and, they value their employees who have worked with them a long time.  if you have worked there and gained benefits - you're not likely to be cut.  also, they value age instead of denegrating it.  some companies think that older people (as with my husband) will want better wages and more benefits - and they cut them before they have to pay.  but, here - despite some employee layoffs - they are not as severe and dramatic as other companies because profits are not the only bottom line.  this has made the company more successful - because the employees work better for the company knowing they have a little more security.  i say a little - because the world market is starting to control things (as quasimodo said) since our economy is really dependent too upon what happens in the world market. 

we are not so isolationist anymore -which is good and bad.  good in that we share with the world...bad in that we cannot control pricing much anymore and will soon (as quasimodo says) have to pay the price ourselves.  look at gas.  this is putting most americans under.  credit cards.  the interest rates are going up.  even my student loan (which thankfully is small) is being impacted by the war and by world economy.  it was at a comfortable rate - and somehow the bank manages to knock it up 2 points.  this is unfair to me - i think - because i've been paying it off even before it was required.  the good part of paying your bills and being a good employee are not having the same impact as before.  it will soon seem that we have no control over our debt - and our life situations as with real democracy. 

[quasimodo]

Pianistimo I'm just a little Fnance Manager, if I were a big one I doubt I could find the time to interest myself in music and piano, and I would definitely not be able to post in such a cool forum. Anyway, remember that a great part of that job is to find the most standardized way to bullshit people, lol.

However, you put some points which are down to earth and converge with my above post. Thank you for that.

Derek, Bolliver, my goal is certainly not to denigrate your convictions or political inclinations, but I believe you are misinformed about a lot of things. When I was 20 or something, I also was quite idealist, but I knew nothing.

Now I learned more but I still know almost nothing, except that I can feel when a position is totally based on misconceptions.

Humans tend to be selfish. sometimes the sum of selfishness give an acceptable balance, but most often not. No matter how economy performs, we human are such bad asses that there will be miserable people, poor and homeless, rich but depressive, talented but alcoholic and so on. Humanism is about giving your hand personally to alleviate someone's misery. If you rely on a system or an ideology, whatever its name is, to take care of humanity, you just abandon your own humanity. Make it personal.

[jre58591]

its so funny that i see this topic now. yesterday i returned from a service project. i helped the homeless for 4 days in los angeles's skid row, east los angeles, and hollywood. it was quite an experience. i was able to help the homeless by giving them clothing, food, showers, basic accomodations. we even slept in homeless shelters, ate their food, even walked and used public transportation. when i walked down skid row, i woke up and saw what people really live like. it was an experience i will never forget, especially because we lived like the way they lived, in a way.

[musik_man]

Low unemployment rates in the USA are not due to the altruism of USA entrepreneurs or their super-efficiency or whatever; it is due to the US government and Federal Reserve's financial and monetary policies: low interest rates, low tax rates, low exchange rate for the dollar and every year going deeper in national public and private debt; indeed it's a strategy which works, at least currently but in the long run it makes USA very vulnerable to a major financial crisis and then you'll see how unemployment will sky-rocket. So your statement about irrelevance of government action in wealth creation is pretty mislead.
Now, about the “entrepreneur”, let me tell you something, I've worked all my career as a finance manager in private firms and the later years in a global one;  I can tell you that the goal of private firms is to you use as few employees as possible and at the lowest salary. Capitalism aims at rewarding the shareholders for their financial investment, so the less wages you have to pay the more you can satisfy them. Actually, just the announcement of a downsizing makes the stock exchange quotation improve. More and more, you will see the big players leave western countries, including USA, to use cheap labor in less developed, hence more “competitive” countries, especially in Asia and eastern Europe. For the moment it's mainly European countries which have to undergo the consequences, because they made the EURO currency error, but believe me, sooner or later, US economy will have the same problem, by the time the current financial/monetary strategy becomes not sustainable anymore. And it is inevitable, you cannot indefinitely maintain a “way of life” just by getting into more debt each and everyday.

If you are going to talk about unemployement, you need to differentiate between cyclical and structural.  Our monetary and fiscal policy can help ease recessions and reduce cyclical unemployment, but it doesn't do anything about structural unemployment.  On this Derek is right.  It's the US's ability not to regulate the economy needlessly that keeps our unemployment significantly below Europe's. 

You fail to take into account that firms aren't the only ones with bargaining powers.  Let's look at the other side of a business.  Obviously, corporations want to charge as much as humanly possible for their goods, yet prices don't skyrocket.  It's because competition prevents them from raising prices.  If Business A doubles it's price, Business B will take all of business A's customers.  In the same way, if one corporation is paying the workers too little, they won't be able to keep employees.  They'll have to raise their wages to the market level to keep their workers.

[prometheus]

Being unemployed is something different than being homeless. In socialist European countries, or rather the socialistically inclined ones if you want to call it that way, the only people that are homeless are those that are mentally ill, minor and severe, often in combination with alcohol or other drug addictions that either reject help or people that for some reason weren't catched by the social net.


But since my country is becomming less and less social we also have employed poor people here. And this is what you see in the US as well. Poor employed people are off worse in the US than poor unemployed people in socialist countries. Now one may argue that this is a stupid economic tactic by the socialist government but the facts about poverty stand.

In the US anyone can become homeless. Some homeless people in the US used to be rich. You don't see this in socialist countries. In the US the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. It is called the american dream. How can you deny something you are proud of?

The idea that humans are selfish is also incorrect. People like Musik_Man want you to believe that selfishness is good for you and for me plus everyone else. It is neither.

[quasimodo]

If Business A doubles it's price, Business B will take all of business A's customers.  In the same way, if one corporation is paying the workers too little, they won't be able to keep employees.  They'll have to raise their wages to the market level to keep their workers.

That's pretty theoretical. Just look at Wal-Mart... Luckily, not all American firms act like this one, but Wal-Mart is the total application of a capitalist approach, yet if a majority of big companies imitated them (and many are probably tempted), USA's conditions of employment would soon be similar to Thailand's or Indonesia's.
Modern firms do not value labor from a moral point of view. Labor is just a ressource like any other. IMO that's a wrong approach, not only morally but also economically in the long term.

And about structural vs. cyclical, the point is that US monetary and financial situation is not just cyclical, it definitely is structural, which means that the global environment has become such that the economical aspect of the "American Dream" is not anymore sustainable unless you go for a big debt stretching. That's a pretty dangerous strategy for the future, especially when India and China are inexorably becoming big players in industry, services as well as finance.

[prometheus]

Every human needs to hire themselves out. And when you are no longer needed you are disgarded. From some point of view slavery is more moral. Which cars are treated better? Those that people have bought or those that people hire?

It's pretty sick.

[musik_man]

That's pretty theoretical. Just look at Wal-Mart... Luckily, not all American firms act like this one, but Wal-Mart is the total application of a capitalist approach, yet if a majority of big companies imitated them (and many are probably tempted), USA's conditions of employment would soon be similar to Thailand's or Indonesia's.
Modern firms do not value labor from a moral point of view. Labor is just a ressource like any other. IMO that's a wrong approach, not only morally but also economically in the long term.

I'd take theoretical over anecdotal any day of the week.  Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the theory.  If it doesn't work in the real world, you should have no problem telling me why.  It makes perfect sense to me that, as long as firms have to compete for labor, workers will recieve fair wages.  Wal-mart is doing exactly this.  Working at Wal-mart doesn't require any talents at all, be they physical strength or education.  Of course they'll be paid fairly lowly.  If you want to make them better off, you need to get them educated so their labor will be worth something.  And let me ask you one question, if Wal-mart can set its wages without regard to the market, why is it paying its workers more than minimum wage?

You are correct that labor is another resource.  It's just like any good.  Workers voluntarily sell their labor to some company, and use it to buy other goods and services.  Valuing labor from 'a moral point of view.'  Can you explain exactly what that means in the real world?  Does it mean we should support heavy handed government regulations that don't make anyone better off simply to make ourselves feel good?

Every human needs to hire themselves out. And when you are no longer needed you are disgarded. From some point of view slavery is more moral. Which cars are treated better? Those that people have bought or those that people hire?

It's pretty sick.

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here.  You have at least a decent idea of where I stand politically.  I believe in a mostly free market with government providing public goods and a very small safety net.  I have no idea exactly what you believe in.  This is what I sort of grasp.  You...
1) Are a self-proclaimed Libertarian-Socialist (no idea what that is)
2) Believe in no Government (are you an anarchist?)
3) Believe in 'total democracy' (no idea what that means)
It's rather hard to argue against a system who I have only extremely vague ideas of.  Perhaps you could sum up your political beliefs for me.  You can do it in another thread if you'd like, but until then I can't see any debate getting anywhere far.

[quasimodo]

I'd take theoretical over anecdotal any day of the week.  Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the theory.  If it doesn't work in the real world, you should have no problem telling me why.  It makes perfect sense to me that, as long as firms have to compete for labor, workers will recieve fair wages.  Wal-mart is doing exactly this.  Working at Wal-mart doesn't require any talents at all, be they physical strength or education.  Of course they'll be paid fairly lowly.  If you want to make them better off, you need to get them educated so their labor will be worth something.  And let me ask you one question, if Wal-mart can set its wages without regard to the market, why is it paying its workers more than minimum wage?

You are correct that labor is another resource.  It's just like any good.  Workers voluntarily sell their labor to some company, and use it to buy other goods and services.  Valuing labor from 'a moral point of view.'  Can you explain exactly what that means in the real world?  Does it mean we should support heavy handed government regulations that don't make anyone better off simply to make ourselves feel good?

In the real world, companies compete for lower costs and higher market shares, definitely not for labor, except maybe for the high level management but it is an infinitesimal part of the poulation.
Moreover, the market of labor is now global, so yes, maybe companies will pay fair wages but in the reference of fairness which is applicable to China or Thailand, where basic workers are paid roughly 200 or 300 bucks a month. Like any other ressource, labor can be outsourced. Maybe not in any business but in most of them. Firms compete for aressource only when the ressource is rare. Labor is abundant indoors as well as worlwide.

What I mean about not valuing labor in a moral point of view is that firms don't give a sh*t that workers are human beings. Work is supposed one of the foundations of society therefore should be attractive for the mainstream citizen. How could a salary which barely allows a worker to emerge from the poverty line be attractive? When one is one the good side of the food chain, like me and probably you, it's easy to bash the non-talented, non-educated basic worker. Yet this mentality which is not new, is what in the late 19th century lead europe to the Marxist aberration.

There are people out there who have a work but are poor, and I mean really poor, they skip meals, they can't afford a rent, they are restless. It doesn't seem to bother you, the modern capitalist system as it works is good enough, is that it?

[musik_man]

If companies don't compete for labor, how do wages get set?  You seem to think I'm too theoretical so let me give a personal example.  A few years back I had a summer job as a carnie(carnival worker) at the Kemah Boardwalk.  I made $5.50 an hour.  This summer my brother interviewed there this last summer.  Now they are paying $6.50, because they couldn't keep enough workers at the previous wage.  I know I sound like a broken record(particularly if you've been reading my posts in other threads), but it's all about supply and demand.  Labor is not magically exempt from these rules.

No, one has a right to a comfortable lifestyle.  The natural state of man is abject poverty.  Capitalism has moved a large part of the world out of that poverty.  The gains may be unequal but that's their very nature.  You can't just take the good parts of capitalism and leave out all the bad bits. 

I have to call BS on your last bit.  In America, if you have a full time job you can afford food.  You even get food stamps from the government.  Quite frankly, the poor of America are historically in the top 1% of humanity in terms of wealth.

[quasimodo]

If companies don't compete for labor, how do wages get set?  You seem to think I'm too theoretical so let me give a personal example.  A few years back I had a summer job as a carnie(carnival worker) at the Kemah Boardwalk.  I made $5.50 an hour.  This summer my brother interviewed there this last summer.  Now they are paying $6.50, because they couldn't keep enough workers at the previous wage.  I know I sound like a broken record(particularly if you've been reading my posts in other threads), but it's all about supply and demand.  Labor is not magically exempt from these rules.

No, one has a right to a comfortable lifestyle.  The natural state of man is abject poverty.  Capitalism has moved a large part of the world out of that poverty.  The gains may be unequal but that's their very nature.  You can't just take the good parts of capitalism and leave out all the bad bits. 

I have to call BS on your last bit.  In America, if you have a full time job you can afford food.  You even get food stamps from the government.  Quite frankly, the poor of America are historically in the top 1% of humanity in terms of wealth.

Alright, forget my BS about meals, now and then I like doing dumba** extrapolations (nonetheless, I don't rule out that people in poverty under certain circumstances may trade their food stamps, to take care of other emergencies). Anyway the food stamp thing tends to confirm my argumentation vs. Derek's lyrical apology of capitalism: in fact the government has to provide a financial support to compensate the unsufficient salary that "entrepreneurs' deign giving to low qualified employees. The food stamps sounds pretty socialist-ish to me by the way, how disgusting!

Now just for the sake of argumenting, your personal example fails to convince me about your theory of wages raising due to competition between employers, two reasons for that: first you are stating about a seasonal job for which the applicant's profile is pretty different of full-time employment, secondly, considerations as inflation etc certainly have something to do with the increase of wage rates as well. I do agree with you though that the laws of market play a role in labor/salary issues, but it would rather be the other way around. It's not the companies who struggle to find employees, it's the applicants who are struggling to find a job, in general.

To put the debate into perspective, have a look on this:

https://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfact3.shtml , and also:
https://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.shtml

Now you're partly right, the income taken as poverty threshold in USA would, in some other places of the world, be considered as a very high profile salary. However it's only on absolute terms, in relative terms costs of living are not comparable. A working-poor in USA certainly undergoes many times more stress than a basic farmer in China.

We could obviously argue endlessly about those matters. For the record I'm a pure product of capitalist management techniques, nonetheless I don't delude myself to be a benefactor of humanity. Capitalism is not a political project, it's the modern version of the jungle, eat or be eaten. I don't get any moral satisfaction of the state of things, yet I love my paycheck.

My message is just for you not to take everything for granted. The simplest answer is not always the best one.

[musik_man]

If supply and demand aren't the driving factors in setting wages, what sets them?  What do you think should set them?  People get payed based off of how much the market values their skillsets.  Poor people are poor because they don't produce anything valuable, not because the rich are cheating them.  Now there are a lot of reasons why they produce less.  Some of them are not their fault(bad parenting, lack of access to education.)  Others are (bad work ethic, drug abuse, unwillingness to be educated.)  Society can do some things to ameliorate those causes outside of the poor's control, but even if they were 100%(which unfortunately they never will be) there would still be poor people.  This is the sort of poverty that nothing can be done about at the governmental level.  In fact most attempts to eliminate this poverty will only make society worse off.  If the government could stick its hands in and eliminate or significantly reduce poverty, I'd be all for it, but it can't.

What government can do is try to correct problems that are beyond people's control.  It can subsidize education, tax inherited wealth, support the disabled among other things.  But when it merely tosses money at the poor, it only subsidizes bad behaviours.  We don't want people to be lazy at work or to drop out of school, but the government is dedicated to making these options more attractive.  They worsen the very problem they seek to correct.  People respond to incentives.  If people don't take responsibility for their actions they act irresponsibly.  Your mistake is this.  You recognize that people act in their self-interest when living in a laissez faire economy, but you ignore their selfishness and its effects in the welfare state.

BTW interesting note about poverty.  When calculating who is below the poverty line, the government ignores government handouts.  For someone at the poverty line the government gives out 40 to 60 cents of benefits on the dollar, none of which is counted in the statistics.