value is set by someone other than the worker. You might have a more valuable skill than I have, ergo, you make more when you use that skill. I may work 80 hours a week, so despite you earning more each hour that you work, I may take home more each week as I work longer hours. Bob might work longer than both of us, and have amazingly valuable skills, so he makes more than both of us combined.
Whoever is paying us determines our value.

In a world with no cars, mechanics have little value. If you are the only mechanic in the world and everyone has a car, you charge whatever you like.

This is reminiscent of a debate I had 28 years ago with one of my girlfriend's Mother. She was angry because I was applying for a job that paid more than she made and I was 25 years younger than her. She apparently felt that my four years of education and specialty trade training was not relevant to how much I should be paid, nor should the fact that we did completely different jobs play into wage at all. As per her, everyone should make the same wage. It was perhaps one of the most ridiculous discussions I have been in. Her position amounted to "because".

Sure. Equal value. I am not seeing that in your position

Exactly, and return it in better condition if at all possible.

Hardly. Let those benefit receivers get up bright and early and spend as much time lobbying for their wage as the people going to full time jobs. I am just not seeing that. Maybe that's just the locals there though. Do they spend 40 hours a week at the government offices in your area?

Not for me. My first marriage was a flat out nightmare. I got two great kids out of the deal, but as for the ex-wife...Never hope to hear or see her again.

you have a problem with personal autonomy?

Funny thing eh, it isn't a single direction thing. I support people's right to be self determining, for better and for worse. Somebody wants to work hard, get educated, develop a skill, and make a little money. Cool. I'll support that. Someone else wants to not work, do drugs and maybe die in the street. Not my personal choice, but I recognize that it's theirs and I support their right to do that too. Notice I won't stop either one eh. That's actual non-biased support.

Not that "I'll only support you if you do what I want you to" crap most people shovel lately.

I am unclear as to how supporting those who are unwilling to support themselves is of value, end of story.

The working population works and receives remuneration for their efforts. Effort in, something of value in return. Nothing in, nothing of value out. Simple math.

I am suggesting that I don't actually care what Jeff makes, annually or otherwise. It is irrelevant to me. Benefits recipients should not be receiving benefits at all. Get a job. Find work, make money. If Jeff makes 1.5 million a year, he can have that lifestyle. If bob makes 25k a year he can have that lifestyle. If Trevor doesn't want to work he can bloody starve a while, or die. I could not care less. But I don't want to pay for Trevor to be an entitled ass. If he is willing to die rather than work or develop skills I fully support him in that position. Go personal autonomy!

if the individual, using their own skills, manages to convince the government to increase that individuals wage, then yes, it is a skill which secures a wage by it's exercise. However, since that is very nearly never the case, as those lacking said skills are provided skilled advocates, usually on the government's dime, to lobby the government, that should not be allowed.

I grant you they breathe, they take up space, and they provide a great number of social workers employment. Hard to support that kind of apathy, hence my position that stopping benefits to those who refuse self improvement. Dead weight is better as simply dead. Compost has a purpose.

Jeff does stuff for his money. It might not be sweeping the sidewalk, but it still amounts to doing something. I don't pretend to know what he does. Hell he could have inherited all of it and simply been smart enough to not lose it. Point is, he still needs to have skills to run the company, shmooze the politicians, etc to get the results he wants.

I am talking the willful dead weight. Those that feel the world owes them "their piece of the pie" but are too entitled to work for it. Be it physical work or intellectual investment. The ones that love the line "you're so lucky to have that good job."

Yeah right, because I pulled my education and training out of a cracker jacket box while I was high on meth. And I still have a job because I am lucky. Actually going to work, working, and being moderately good at my job have nothing to do with continued employment. It's all just luck.

non-emotional suffering — Down The Rabbit Hole

Please explain non-emotional suffering. Is that like...physical pain? Otherwise, it's all emotional.

I was thinking more the "I'm too good to sweep a sidewalk, and I deserve a much higher wage than that." while having no education and no motivation while getting welfare type. You have a different tangent than I.

Magma is a real source of huge amounts of clean energy we need, like yesterday. It cannot be developed quite that quickly, but doesn't have to be - assuming ultimately, it would be more than adequate, we can redress the damage in due course. — counterpunch

This is, unfortunately, essentially the same crap I have heard all my life. You are using the "Magma" energy source, while the fossil fuel folks touted their crap, all the while spewing the "clean it up later" line of garbage. In this instance, "redress the damage in due course." Right. Except that it flat out never happens. EVER.

I am sitting in Alberta, home of thousands of orphan wells all built on the "clean it up later" bullshit. No one ever wants to clean it up. So, moving forward, if you have no way to accomplish something without making a mess you can't clean up, you have no way to accomplish something. END OF STORY.

No one wants to clean up the mess. They are unemployed up here, sitting around doing jack shit and still don't want to consider cleaning it up. It took a federal mandate to even make the provincial government look at it as a possible option. Never mind that it has been staring them in the face for decades.

Clean it up later is a game plan for children.

an animal that doesn’t have linguistic based, conceptual, heuristic self-talk cognition. — schopenhauer1

How exactly do you know that? I certainly do not.

Just because I cannot understand the animal does not mean that it, and others of it's kind, cannot understand it. I notice that birds in my yard very quickly communicate with more distant birds when I have renewed the water during hot dry weather. My dogs dream, bark and growl in their sleep, and have food preferences, as well as preferred sleeping spots. As do my cats. They communicate with me as best they can, likely far more eloquently than I am able to deduce. That is a communication problem, not an intelligence problem. When my dog behaves poorly he certainly responds in a dejected, embarrassed manner which would support his self-talk of behaving poorly.

Actually I think that, rather than stop benefits, those receiving benefits should be put to work and receive additional, functional training in order to secure a better, more suitable wage for themselves. However, when that is an option, those who decline to improve themselves should get no funding of any sort. Step up and take care of yourself or lie down and let someone who will step up take your place.

Where I am from the government assistance programs will only support you if you can prove that you have made no attempt to improve your situation on your own. Once you prove you are useless they are all over supporting you, however, if you ask for a hand up to become self sufficient...not a chance. Never understood that, just baffles me.

Today's "best practice" is tomorrow's nightmare. Welcome to progress eh.

My personal favorite answer on an exam from a student:

Q: how was Julius Caesar killed?
A: He was shot.

Just awesome.

Your position assumes the inability of man to move into a state of acceptance of his life. That seems very sad to me. It also turns a blind eye to those that have achieved balance in their lives. We do not "have it bad" at all.

Also, all of your supporting quotes have a foundation/assumption that the other, "lower" forms of life (suggesting that man is higher, a laughable concept) are unaware of all that man is aware of, however, that foundation is based entirely on the assumption that we, humans, are the higher form of life, and that we are aware of things that the other lifeforms are not aware of. I say that they are aware of these things, they have simply found balance, something that we, generally, have yet to find.

We are hardly the higher being.

The world has gone to hell. — gikehef947

Because I choose to use my money for something that I find valuable and not for something that you agree with? That is a very egocentric method for determining going to hell.

I agree that the world is exceedingly disappointing currently, but it has nothing to do with book prices or what people choose to do with their money. I find our general culture of fear and rights violating far more concerning than what people do with their money. Media will lead us to hell on earth, no doubt about that in my mind, but really, do what you like with your money, that's why it is your money afterall.

5% able-bodied that can't get work — Down The Rabbit Hole

can't get work or won't accept what they can get? I have never met anyone that could not find work of some sort. I have met a great number that refused to accept the work they could get. "Can't work" is very very rare. "I won't do that" is far more common, and deserves no remorse as it is very quickly followed by some version of "take care of me". No chance: take care of yourself.

If that means 5% die, oh bloody well. Seriously, there are enough people. 5% less won't make me lose any sleep.

Absolutely it is based on perspective. I will do what I like with my money. If the book has appropriate meaning to me, it is worth the money. If I think it is trash then I will keep my money. I could pile my cash up and burn it if I found it amusing enough. Although that would be highly unlikely, even less likely than spending 100k on a book. But I have a few $10000.00 books and consider the money well spent. And no hideous paintings by seeming alcoholics, so clearly I have different values than others.

I am eyeing up a lovely book for my wife, current asking price is $35,000.00 It would look quite nice in the library.

I'm saying your God has the ability to change the past, and your memories of it, and not tell you. In which case you'd have no way of knowing whether or not he did so. So, you have no way of knowing whether or not he has or has not changed the past. You have no evidence in support of either proposition. — khaled

So the takeaway here is...God is a dick and may randomly screw with our memories/past for personal entertainment. Or to have faith that God is not a dick and while having said ability does not use it as doing so destroys any ability we have to learn or grow from any point in our life.

Alternately, there is no God. Our past is functionally what we need it to be and therefore exactly as we remember it at any given moment, which allows us our identity and an ability to move forward/onward in life.

Lastly...How exactly do you know what my, or anyone else's, God can, or cannot, do? My God might be limited to only making a decent hot turkey sandwich, because that is all I need him for. Yet somehow you know this already...

he he he. Nicely played.

"Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress". — schopenhauer1

Where is the idea of "unnecessary work" introduced? I would suggest that we work as much as we deem "necessary" to attain the goal we have set out to achieve. As do gophers, rabbits, and all the other creatures that perform tasks in order to survive.

So, even under threat of death, I suggest that all work being done is necessary to the one doing it. There is always a choice to not work, even if that means death.

if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

Yes.

If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources? — Down The Rabbit Hole

If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse.

Death is a fairly strong motivator to engage in life. If one refuses to engage, knowing the result to be death, that, to me, is essentially suicide. Who am I to argue with that choice?

I would claim that emotions have always been over rated and have rarely been necessary. I will, however, grant that emotions do at times increase the enjoyment of things. As for necessary...not so much.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? And when do we give the fetus moral consideration? Better question when do we give anything moral consideration? — Oppyfan

1) No.
2) We should not.
3) When it is practical to do so.

Ah well. I will save my money for awhile longer then.

The world has gone mad ... or always was. — gikehef947

It's a matter of perspective. I have seen paintings that look like they were painted by a colour-blind drunk sell for millions of dollars. A page from the Guttenberg Bible sells for $250,000.00 I would love to get a chance to look over this book... maybe add it to my library.

It’s like parents losing their lifelong freedoms once the kids are birthed. Its not just! So, to hell with the kids’ well-being; our freedoms to do as we please come first. — javra

So what passes for modern parenting for most of those under 50. Yeah!

discomfort is the primary disease, followed closely by lazy.

Most people will do a great deal to avoid discomfort and a reduction in lifestyle. Combine that with a pronounced level of laziness and poof! A great deal of no change is the result.

Now if we eliminated people...likely things would rebalance after a century or so. However, from a planet history perspective, the earth has undergone repeated heating and cooling cycles. Vast mostly desert regions to vast mostly green verdant forests and vegetation. Likely humans have increased the rate of change of this process, for a little while. Once we are gone the world will spin onwards and move into the next cycle. We may or may not be around, and outside of our opinion, does that matter?

The dinosaurs had a good run and now we use them to fuel our cars. What will the bulk of humanity's remains be used for in 250,000 years. Likely, nothing. But hey, you never know.

agreed.

Awesome. You KNOW she is into you if she says yes.

Seriously, just walk away. Hell, she might be so stunned that she decides to pursue you. At that point...ask her to join you for skydiving lessons or to go snorkeling and chase fish in the ocean (or something similar). If she declines, walk away and never look back.

Exactly.

Not if you are motivated. It's only 100k

1. If you're not afraid to die then it doesn't matter whether you live or die. — TheMadFool

There is a flaw in your assumption. Not fearing death does not mean I have no preference at this time.

I am not afraid of wearing boots either, but currently shoes make more sense, so shoes it is.

I am not afraid of death and am currently enjoying life, therefore I have preference to continue living. THAT does not equate to a fear of death, merely that I am still more inclined to living than dying at this point. The question, if you recall, was do we fear death, not do we currently prefer being alive. If I preferred death to life, I would be dead already, that I am responding means I elect to live awhile longer.

as a general rule, humans have an aversion to change. — HardWorker

I would add to that "...that has questionable, or no, value to them." Your christmas present scenario is an example of change with potential value, therefore change is good. However, waking up and finding that you are now responsible for hand washing all the dishes would likely find a less enthusiastic response. The best example that I can think of to demonstrate how change value is assigned based on personal values would be the response to covid measures. Some people support the masking, others hate it. Same with vaccines; many said "Yay! it's about time." Others "Get that crap away from me". Exactly the same product, very different response to change. Based on perceived value.