Then you can't consider it a shit job, Ubereil.
It takes more than being slightly less shitty than starvation to not be a shit job.
If you've got hundreds of sad bastards that are qualified for nothing else, then we're damn lucky such a job exists for them.
Why? They'd be even better off if the rest of us could share our abundance with them so they didn't have to slave for 18 hours a day to avoid starvation, so why should this particular be seen as luck? Because they could be slightly worse off?
If shovelling asbestos needs to get done, SOMEONE will have do it. Say we could pay the dude a million dollars a day. Does that make it less of a shit job? You've defined it as a shit job- you can't change parameters now, but that's a damn nice living there.
Sure is, and the shoveller's life is substantially better for it (assuming he's still not working 18 hours a day…). Of course, you could stop at around $300 a day and achieve the exact same thing. Assuming we can afford that, which is doubtful. But a minimum that makes for a somewhat livable life at least would surely make asbestos shovelling a lot better.
That is never going to happen if we leave things up to the free market, though. There's too much competition for it.
Now who is most appropriate to decide when that balance is met? Government? Ubereil? Or the sad bastard that will actually hold the shovel?
Call me arrogant, but I believe pepole would rather work 8 hours a day making a decent living so they can afford three meals a day and a place to stay than working 18 hours a day making enough to eat a small piece of bread each day and live in a dirty shed. I mean, for some reason the first option seems better in every single way…
It comes down to knowing what the sad bastard holding the shovel wants though. This the sad bastard holding the shovel knows best. How to get there though, that's something other, better educated pepole are probably better suited to figure out. If it's a group of educated pepole it's even more probable.
rossrjensen:
Ethics=/=politics. I am sure Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Fascists, Anarchists, and Communists have all been responsible for ethical violations.
That doesn't explain why it's not a political issue. Let me explain how I think: politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions (according to wikipedia - which I agree with here). Ethics is a branch of philososophy that deals with what we ought to do. Now, what we ought to do is rather important when making desisions of any kind and collective decisions are no different.
And that doesn't change because politicians have made poor choices.
Thus saying ethics has nothing to do with politics is a bit like saying winning a hockey match has nothing to do with scoring more goals than the opposition.
As I said to you, money is nothing more than a tool. It can be used by a person as a leverage to gain power, but that is certainly not how I would use it if I had it in abundance.
I agree, money is a tool. But, just like all tools, being in posession of it increaes your power, since it gives you more that you can do. If you have money you can buy things you want, if you don't you can't. That's power.
I cannot agree that power->freedom however. I see freedom as an inalienable human right, perhaps the only inalienable human right, that all people are entitled too.
I suspect that's because we have different definitions of freedom. Freedom is your ability to control and affect your life - the easier you have it controlling your surroundings the freer you are. With this definition it's quite obvious why power leads to freedom.
As for the rest of your statement, I am familiar with your sentiments and values. Dte is absolutely right, it is a difference of fundamental philosophy. I believe the system itself is fair, thus equal opportunity is fair, not equal outcome. You believe the system is unfair, so equal outcome must be attained through other means.
As a consequencialist I don't really care about fairness. It's merely a question of choosing the system that makes pepole as happy as possible.
Again, this ignores progress in society. It's akin to "as things were, they always will be".
Well, if history isn't good enough data, look at the third world.
Funny read. Nonetheless, it doesn't exactly tell the whole story. I would be considered impoverished right now. In fact, I currently struggle with a couple of the items in that article. I am well educated, but I chose to give up a good professional job in order to try and begin my own business.
Not to diminish your problems, but if you have an education you're not in the same league as the guy in the article. There's plenty of you think from having an education that goes beyond the professional skills you've aquired (your ability to learn is enhanced and you also get a lot of bonus knowledge, for instance).
It's not impossible to do - my great grandfather immigrated to the United States with nothing and created a million dollar farming operation a century ago, and my dad managed to become fairly successful despite his parents/grandparents dying in a car accident when he was 10 years old and his family literally losing everything his grandfather created because of estate taxes.
That it's not impossible for everyone doesn't mean it's not near impossible for most. Bob Beamon jumped 8,90 meters in long jump in the 1968 olympics. That doesn't mean everyone has what it takes to jump 8,90 in long jumps. It also doesn't mean everyone with the capacity to jump 8,90 in long jumps will.
That your great grandfather had what it took to build a million dollar farming operation from nothing doesn't mean every person who has nothing and doesn't build a million dollar farming operation without help can/could do so. Pepole have different abilities, and some have more abilities than others.
Übereil
