Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You realize saying "you were taught to like a money based economy" doesnt make me biased and doesnt make things I say invalid, alright?I meant it as similar teaching (and raising) religious get. You seem as credulous about this as they are about their religion - denying all other possibilities from ever working, thinking if there was no money it would be chaos.Trade works, money works, and no money would work. But no money would be the best and most efficient of those three, as I have explained.Most people understand that they need to work or everything would fall apart,No, they don't, they don't even think about it. All they think about is getting paid for their job, for the time they spend working (this is about most people, not all).that there would be a large organization or government producing and regulating all this, so it would be a monopoly, everyone has to work but they aren't forced to work for one party.This is prejudice... Sounds a lot like Soviet times and lands... but the difference is they had and used money and they had many other problems.There would be communication between everyone to keep things running smoothly (as there is even currently), as I've also said. No need for a monopoly. I might as well ask you why presently it isn't a monopoly?Either way, a monopoly does not necessarily mean a bad thing. Depends on who are running it.Even now, if you are an adult you have to work, assuming you don't have millions to just waste your life away.so if there wasn't money there likely weren't enough resources to suppor t the project in the first place,Not having enough money does not mean there aren't enough resources, resources are always there. You just have to go and get them - something you cannot do in current society, as money is needed to begin using them.yes there were likely resources being used for other things but you don't have the right to take them away.When did I say anything about taking them away?Everything can be done correctly, but the chance of it being done properly is extremely low and the time it would last is even lower.Prejudice again. Doing it properly would not be extremely low, if the leaders knew exactly what was required to be done. The time it would last? As long as humanity would last. Or what, you think they would revert back to money once they'd seen how well it works without?and if you don't have enough money then you do without,If you don't have enough you stay homeless and depend on charity, or starve to death. In current society, if you don't have enough money you cannot live a decent and normal life.you don't just waltz out into the world, get a high paying job and get everything you like.Have I ever said the contrary?People with "unused" resources, regardless of what they do with them, those are their resources, not yours.That means they are greedy, if they have more than enough and don't use them. There is no point having something you don't use, while someone else would have use for them. How can you not get it? This wouldn't be an issue with no money. There would be no wasting resources in this manner.You seem to think that anyone who doesn't just blow all their money and spend it all is just "not using them" its called saving, most people who understand how economics and the world works know that spending all your money is bad and risky.Saving for some harder times or for something more expensive, I wasn't talking about that. But with no money there'd be no need for it anyway, as, you know, if you need it you get it.I was talking about having more than needed, that means more than just that which is saved for something. Still, that which is saved is for some time not used, it is not in circulation and thus it has no use at all, it doesn't help anything progress.Its not free, it costs labor, resources, time and transportation. You work and you get money to buy resources, in the current system. You work and get resources, in your system. So why would people not steal and try and get their hands on other people things? You seem to think that everyone is a little angel and that they will act like you... They won't.Currently also it costs labor, resources, time and transportation AND it costs something extra - money. Even though it has been produced for use you cannot use it till you have the money you got for creating it to pay for it. Might as well remove money from the equation...Yes, you work, and from that work the necessities are produced for you and others, to keep everything running. The same is currently but for some stupid reason there is an extra thing called money.People would have no need to steal as they could simply go and get it for free. There would definitely be a very little bit of stealing but not as it currently is.A little angel? No, there would be less reasons to do stupid things like stealing (although presently stealing isn't always a stupid thing).Go back to reading Capital by Karl Marx.And you open your mind.No starvation and no poor people as everything would be free. If someone chose to not be part of it then that'd be their problem.Its completely right, if everything needs to be regulated, recorded,distributed and managed you would need a large organization or state. And by the way, I wasn't taught this.You think that is not happening in present? Everything, more or less, is regulated by people, recorded by people, and managed by people, and by organizations and states. There would be no need for a large organization or state any more than is presently.So books and texts told you it can never work and you simply take it as truth?Just cause it doesnt exist isn't a reason to make it (logic says it won't work, your simplistic view of people and and the world say its would work though)Since it would be much more efficient than current way then yes, it should be done. You are biased, you literally cannot think objectively about any of this.Simplistic while I have actually thought about all this, with an open and objective mind?You are strictly adhering to one thing - money is the best. Without actually thinking about whether you are right or not.I wasn't taught this, stop calling everyone who disagrees with prejudice or closed minded... thats actually quite prejudiceI only call people that if they give me a reason to. By denying something that is, would be, etc. You have given me a reason by saying it would not work and by giving rather stupid explanations and examples that would not even exist the way you claim they would, if it were done. You completely cannot make connections between different aspects and what they would result. You are biased, you think the current way is the only and the best way, without even considering others.Because you don't understand what it is, you live in a certain society doesnt mean you understand it.I seem to understand it better than you do, as I know it is not necessary for it all to work.Money is working great, these issues are cause by people and will exist in any society, your just moving the problem and then thinking it doesnt exist.I've said so many times that there would still be issues but there would be far less. Money is not working great. You call abusing it great? You think it is great that it promotes greed? You think it is great that very many people are paid close to slave wage? You call it great that it is used for buying people off? You call it great that people work not because they are needed to to keep it all running but because they get paid for it, and if they didn't get paid they'd simply not work? That most companies only care about profits not the quality of the product? That it causes people to steal money from others, by cheating, by physical force, or by stealing items they can later sell? There are many other examples. Get it? Money is not even remotely close to great, considering there is a better way where all that would not exist or would be significantly reduced.And authority over distribution doesnt? Most people don't abuse money, most people in authority abuse it though.Authority over distribution? And how exactly would they abuse it? You think there wouldn't be others who'd notice? Normally you don't see money moving around. Try to say the same about products and resources, if they are missing then there's an empty spot. Or they'd forge numbers? What for? To buy people off that way? Everything's free...Were actually going backwards as a species, mutations and mental illnesses and retardation are higher than ever and the average IQ has dropped a bit.That's wrong. We're going forward (but not in everything...).Of course there's more of all those, haven't you noticed the growing population? More people, more illnesses and retardation. And in the past ill people and retarded had less chances of surviving, now everything's delivered to them on a plate, they have better chances of surviving longer.Average IQ? I don't know where you took that but you're wrong, it has increased. I am fairly certain you are aware that we know far now than we did in the past. And that knowledge is increasing also and it effects people and their minds. Is education better now or was it better in the past?Its their money, they earned, they can do what they please with, you have no right to take it away, your opinion doesnt somehow trump others and your are a human just like the one with more money than you, I don't see him trying to steal your money, unless you consider him not giving away his money to be stealing.Is there a point for hoarding or keeping something you will never need nor use? You think they have the right to impede progress by keeping resources out of use?How did they get that much money in the first place? By overcharging products and services and/or by paying low wages (that's basically stealing)?Again, you save money, your supposed to save some, if you have $100,000 and you invest it all and the ivestment goes bad your fucked. PEople should be forced to take that risk because you don't understand economics.You don't understand that money has an overall negative effect, and you don't understand how it would work with no money.There would be no investing, if there's need for expansion then that would happen."you were taught this" is that your only point?The only thing that made sense, considering your biased views. Now I'm simply thinking you're credulous in some areas.... really? Do I really need to explain this? Alright, I will: You get money from resources, if Mr.Nummi eliminates money Mr.Greedy will still have his resources, understand?You don't understand. How will he use those resources? Force others to be his slaves? Everything's free... Somehow stop free items from getting to people and then into slavery? That would never work... People would go against him with force. You think there wouldn't be others in power who are not greedy and who also have power, enough that they could stop the Mr. Greedy? This all aside, I never talked about a dictatorship.Give a chunk of this to that guy over there and a chunk to that one there, and then they will unquestioningly follow him? Don't you get it? There's no medium of exchange, everything you want would be free. Or you think all resources would belong to one guy? As I've said, I'm not talking about a monopoly or dictatorship. If you think that's how it would be like then why isn't it so currently (everywhere)?ITs funny how your preaching for a mass collectivist society but think that people will still act like individuals.So people would be afraid of a person without knowing anything about him? That person would first have to do something or say something to frighten or intimidate others, preferably backed up by examples that also would have to be done by him. The same goes about getting allies. You would support any random dude without knowing his goals?The mass collectivist thing, that's prejudice.Whatever you do, there will be people in power, people will get into power, and they will find ways to get to power. What comes with power? Authority.Weren't we specifically talking about getting into that position?Offer an old or ugly person in power a chance to sleep with and extremely attractive person, theres a pretty good chance they'll give in.You think that wouldn't work even now?Give false hope to get in power, once your in power use propaganda to make people believe more lies. Simple.You think that isn't happening even presently? Or you think that would be the only way it could go with no money? That's prejudice, again.Not really, would change that much with power actually, just take money away from normal people and then they have no power.Really? If currently the government wanted some huge and rich organization or company gone it would get done rather fast. Doesn't matter if people have money or not, they have no real power either way. There will always be some people who are in charge of things.If I had a nice house, good amount of money, good job and a nice life and I saw you were down on your luck I might help you out a bit. However, I'm not obligated to support you or make your life as good as mine.With no money no one would need any help from others.Another one, money promotes people to not care about others.Yes there would, you just can't seem to understand the money isn't what creates poverty and wealth.Currently, poverty comes from having too little or no money. Wealth comes from having a lot of it.If everything would be free then how could people be poor?Wealth? The things you get for free? Or the things that have personal value?Or you mean it comes from having a far too high population? That should be managed even presently... but isn't (except in China).Because 1. its risky to invest all/ most of your money in the economy at once and 2. if you have alot of money you can save it or live nicer.No money, no risk. Live nicer? Not everyone wants that and not everyone could have that. Even presently everyone couldn't have it even if they wanted and could acquire, everything would collapse if they did.Theres and easier way, its called getting a job in polotics and getting good at lying.You think that isn't done presently? Right now it is accompanied by money, making it even easier.I'm sorry, but to think if there was no money you could only use yourself, thats a stupid thing to say, you can use many more things than yourself, your obviously not familiar with what people do.Exactly, what people do, people. You'd have to convince others or frighten others and that you could only do by first using your your own abilities and skills.Your greedy, I'm greedy, were all greedy. Every human is greedy on some level weather they know it or not.Being greedy is wanting excessive amounts of something, an amount you will never need, or just something you will never need, and for oneself only. I have none of it. I'm not greedy, like it or not.I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the phrase "just cause you imagined it doesnt mean it will play out that way, stop being ignorant, be realalistic and understand how your system would actually work."And I've given plenty of explanation that it would work. Stop being closed-minded, be objective and realistic, and understand all the aspects necessary for it to work.Your greedy on some level just like everyone else, some people are less greedy than others. In todays world we just consider people who are really greedy to be greedy and everyone else is just fine... Its bullshit.greed - 1) excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com)2) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed (merriam-webster.com)3) The inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. (wiki)Need more?