Enforced Wage Increases

In regards to the recently proposed and happily defeated minimum wage increase. A government enforced increase in wages is not going to benefit anyone. Employers have a certain budget for employing labour and when the price of that labour increases, no matter how incrementally, they have to off-set the cost in some way in order to maintain their profit. Either they'll have to charge more for their product or cut costs in producing it or both. The most likely method of which is simply to reduce labour, as it's the source of the problem.

In other words, if an employer has to pay more per employee, he'll make due with less employees. Just like when anyone finds a necessary increase in their budget and they have to do without something to cover the costs. The same holds true if you were to argue that a company should take that money out of their profits, because a company doesn't just sit on a pile of money. They use their profit to invest back into the company in research and development, invest it in general, or pay dividends to their shareholders. There isn't an unlimited supply of money and rearranging where it goes does not create more of it.

So when you applaud the wage increase consider your own job, are you a necessary asset to your company or are you expendable to pay for someone else pay raise? And if you think it's OK, your position is secure you could use the money, consider who's paycheck you're receiving by governmental mandate.

It's disgusting that the government puts us in this position, of sacrificed and sacrificee, by rearranging wealth.

Update [8.18.2006 @ 5:53 pm]: I've submitted various forms of this post [edited depending upon the space I'm allowed] as letters to the editor to Purdue's Exponent, The Journal and Courier, and The Indianapolis Star.

Update [8.22.2006 @ 1:37 am]: I've got a confirmation call from all three newspapers, and my letter was published today in The Exponent. We'll see about the others, but I'm tinkled pink about it! Of course I'm keeping print copies; I may just frame them! ^_^
After reading over it in the paper, I really wish I could have expanded a few points and made my argument more explicit, but I think it was good for this format that I remain brief. I'm not sure, since I know what I meant to argue by each statement, but did my brevity do disservice to my clarity? I'd really appreciate an outside opinion on this, since it's my first LTTE.

Update [8.23.2006 @ 5:36 pm]: The Indianapolis Star has published my letter today. I'm going to run down to town today and pick up a paper. Still waiting on The Journal and Courier to see if I'm 3 for 3!

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An here's a link to the LTTE page in The Journal and Courier where mine is printed [scroll down to "Sacrifice comes with increased wages"].

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An ARI press release.

Scott Fitzhugh

Watch, I command it. ---> Linky

Scott isn't always right, but he uses his head well. And this video alone is enough to put him on my top ten "list of people who are human".

A taste: "I've never really understood people who say gas costs too much."

Visiting "God" Again

A little over a year ago I posted my ponderings over the validity of a metaphysically existent god, ie. in this plane/universe/realm/dimension. I wanted to know the answer to the question, "does god exist?" I concluded that to exist one must literally be in existence, that is, the modern notion of god as an infinite-unknowable-ethereal-being is ludicrous. But I was stumped by the claim that god is in existence, is knowable, and does have a definite identity all of which we simply don't yet have conclusive evidence.

What confused me about such an argument is that I knew arguing for either the proof or disproof of god on no evidence are both impossible and silly to attempt, but I didn't yet grasp the implications of that impossibility. I didn't understand where to go from there and I was stopped at the false dichotomy without a proper understanding of the correct third option. I guessed it had something to do with how one goes about gaining knowledge [epistemology], but no clear idea of what that meant.

Now, a year later, I've learned a lot with the help of excellent conversation with my friends Nick, Coire, and Peter. Now that it seems so clear I kind of wonder, rereading John Stark's comments, why it wasn't so obvious then. So, I'm going to explain my new understanding, though I don't think I'm saying anything new to those of you who understand the issue already and to those of you who don't, I don't think I can say anything which will make you understand if you haven't yet thought about it. This is purely for my own benefit.

We as humans very literally can't know anything on no evidence; or to put it positively, we know by evidence. We make observations and find the logical implications of those observations by reason. In the absence of observation there are no logical implications to discover, no conclusions to be made, literally nothing to say.

Put it another way: The conversation that helped me to finally glean this insight was one about truth in which Coire asked, if a man is proven guilty and sentenced but is later released on the grounds of new evidence which proves his innocence, is the original verdict true? Assuming the jury made no errors in judgment given the evidence they were provided, it was the introduction of new evidence and not the realization of faulty reasoning which proved the man's innocence.

The answer is yes, it was true within the context of the given evidence. And what about within the context of that same evidence plus that which was discovered later? It is silly to say. It is like asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota to which the proper answer is yes, then asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota in July, and claiming a "no" answer refutes the truth of the previous answer. They are both correct, both true, but only within the context of the evidence given for the conclusion.

Truth is not reality. Reality is as it is with or without our knowledge of it. Truth is what we correctly derive from our observations reality, but our observations are neither infinite nor boundless.

And so, when asked whether or not I think god exists, my answer is no longer a no [I don't think it was ever a yes]. My answer is: there is nothing I can say about god.

Starbucks

How do you get along with co-workers? That's what I wish they'd ask me again.

In the last week I had an interview to be a barista at Starbucks. I was passed over for the position and someone else was hired. I remained persistent in talking with the managers, so much so that I was worried I'd become a pest, because I really wanted to know what I had done wrong or what I could do better. I discovered that I gave the impression that I would have difficulty getting along with customers and fellow workers, that I wouldn't be able to form the bonds that are so unique to Starbucks. That's what I had been anticipating.

While reviewing my interview in my mind this had been a knot of uncertainty, I didn't know if I had conveyed myself accurately. I understand that when I was asked that same question, "how do you get along with co-workers", I responded that I didn't very well. And that's true, I didn't get along with my co-workers very well, but it's not the whole truth. That was my error, where I had an oppourtunity to shine I remained blunt.

I should have explained why it is that I've spent the past two months hunting a job at Starbucks, why I've been so persistent. I should have said that I know Starbucks is all about the atmosphere. I know that you can get coffee almost anywhere, but Starbucks is the only place where you can relax among friends and sip a little coffee on the side. That's what I love about Starbucks so much, they've taken my favourite free-time activity and offered it to me any time I want for the price of a tall coffee frappuccino with an extra shot of espresso and light whip [$3.50].

I should have said that Starbucks is one of my favourite places to go and it would be only too wonderful if, for now, I could work there. I should have explained that I have a job now, a decent job at which I could conceivable do well and rise among the ranks. But I don't get along well with my coworkers because it's a fast food place and they're all harried with their own jobs. There's very little room to get along well with each other. I should have said that I try to crack a joke, be friendly, and cheer someone up when they're upset about upset customers, but that it's all secondary to my job where I'm supposed to be as fast as I can. Don't get me wrong, fast food isn't evil, they just sell speed instead of comfort and so "getting along" is rather a non-issue and often gets in the way.

I should have said that it bores me having to repeat lines at customers because when I try to be frank and friendly I get reminded that I'm going too slow. I should have said I enjoy speaking happily with customers and coworkers, that It'd be fun to play with the menu for customers the way Starbucks employees do rather than reluctantly saying, "no, we don't carry that". In short, I should have said that I don't get along well with my coworkers and that's precisely why I want to work at Starbucks so single-mindedly. Because I'm a cheerful and open person and even though I have to pay the bills I want to have some fun doing it. I want to work in a place where I have the oppourtunity, nay am encouraged, to get along with coworkers and customers.

What you have just read seriously illustrates my problem. I write better than I speak, and speak better in retrospect than at present. More to the point, I speak very well (as in the physical action of speech) with diction, clarity, and assertiveness. But what to say, that's what I can never get right the first time. I can't seem to speak my mind without giving it at least ten minutes of thought first as to what exactly I mean to say and in what words to best say it. My powers in that area are restricted to small witty commentary among friends, on which I've actually been highly complimented.

So now, I'm encouraged to try again in six months. We'll see if I can learn to communicate properly by then. I hope this has helped.