Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

If you don't understand the need to relax after a year of hard work, you know nothing about important needs in life. Maybe you remember these words when you have a burn-out in 20 years ....

You just don't understand that I'm not a collectivist like you. Holiday is an individual choice. End of story.

Besides, if you are concerned about the finite amount of resources, the possibility for food production etc, than please bear in mind that if our (Dutch) wages would halve, we would still be able to buy more food and resources than the world average. Hence, there is a double moral standard hidden in your post of protecting the rights of the Dutch to buy their (too large) share over the rights of other people to buy their fair share.

I'm not going to compair ourselves with the world average, that will make it a completely different and very complex discussion. To simplify it, a Euro isn't worth the same in every country. What I'm saying is that if it's already impossible to make it till the end of the month with a minimum wage in the Netherlands, to take money of them will make it even more impossible. (and I can also make this discussion more complex by saying eastern Europeans can work for less then the current minimum wages as they don't have these high fixed costs as the Dutch by living in cheap trailers for a couple of month and send back the money they earned)

What I mean by not be able to make it till the end of the month is for example borrow money each month to pay the fix costs to prevent loosing your house, having to go to a 'voedselbank' because no money is left to buy food, kids that are send to school without breakfast because their parents can't afford 3 meals a day, not be able to buy new clothes, never been on a holiday not even a few days in your own country, never celebrated birthdays, sinterklaas, christmas because there is simply no money for it etc. 1 in 10 in the Netherlands is living below the poverty line already.

We are not talking about abolishing rights, just changing them. Not every right is good at every point, and some rights can be contraproductive at some point. And just because it is a right, it doesn't mean that it should always be maintained without discussion. I have the right to question your rights.

Ofcourse we can discuss rights, but to change rights on one side, also need changes on the other side. You can't just simply put more weight on 1 side and expect to keep all in balance.

Ofcourse we can discuss rights, but to change rights on one side, also need changes on the other side. You can't just simply put more weight on 1 side and expect to keep all in balance.

Yeah, you can do that. Like what happened in the 20th century: one side (the employees) got more weight (as they had none before). So it's possible to do a little bit of that weight away now.

What I mean by not be able to make it till the end of the month is for example borrow money each month to pay the fix costs to prevent loosing your house, having to go to a 'voedselbank' because no money is left to buy food, kids that are send to school without breakfast because their parents can't afford 3 meals a day, not be able to buy new clothes, never been on a holiday not even a few days in your own country, never celebrated birthdays, sinterklaas, christmas because there is simply no money for it etc.

Once again, I do not recognize any right on holiday, sinterklaas, birthday celebrations etc. People have the right to celebrate that, but they don't have the right to claim those celebrations.

1 in 10 in the Netherlands is living below the poverty line already.

Depends on what you consider poverty. It's not because you 'only' earn 60% of the mean income (this is how Belgium measures its poverty) that you are poor.

(and I can also make this discussion more complex by saying eastern Europeans can work for less then the current minimum wages as they don't have these high fixed costs as the Dutch by living in cheap trailers for a couple of month and send back the money they earned)

Which is another reason to remove the minimum wage and the huge taxes we have.

You just don't understand that I'm not a collectivist like you. Holiday is an individual choice. End of story.

I'm glade some people and organisations in the Netherlands still do know what is important in life, have their hearts on the right place and care about those who have nothing.

de vakantiebank

This has nothing to do with collectivism but with understanding what real poverty means, also in our countries. And also that little joys in life can make the difference for people living in this poverty to keep on going. To me it seems you lack the understanding of needs in life and the compassion for others. As I wrote, this isn't about collectivism, but if you want to call it that way, go ahead. And another thing, if collectivism is the opposite of selfish, I'm glade to be collectivist.

This has nothing to do with collectivism but with understanding what real poverty means, also in our countries. And also that little joys in life can make the difference for people living in this poverty to keep on going. To me it seems you lack the understanding of needs in life and the compassion for others. As I wrote, this isn't about collectivism, but if you want to call it that way, go ahead. And another thing, if collectivism is the opposite of selfish, I'm glade to be collectivist.

To me, it seems you still don't get what my ideology is. I appreciate things like the vakantiebank or other voluntarily work. I respect people who do that. The point is that it's voluntarily.

Minimum wage has everything to do with collectivism. You say: "people need this and that to have a good life and therefore, they must earn at least X euro". What you forget is that there are people who are being unemployed (and therefore most certainly lack an income of at least X euro) only because there is a minimum wage. So you force people into unemployment and poverty.

And another thing, if collectivism is the opposite of selfish, I'm glade to be collectivist.

Not at all. Collectivist is not at all the opposite of selfishness. Collectivism is as close to selfishness as individualism. The choice between individualism, collectivism or a form in between has nothing to do with selfishness or generosity. I know you think that individualism is selfishness, but I won't even try to convince you that those are unrelated, because I know you will always stick to your wrong view on individualism ;-)

Well, you bring in the argument of the macro-factors, limited food and resources etc., yourself. That is why I jumped at it. What I am arguing is that although wages will become lower, this will be offset by lower prices (I am aware that this is not the case for every product or service), savings for the government (you should not forget that the poorer people also receive the most money from the government) and non-monetary benefits of a higher participation. The Eastern European workers have to earn the minimum wage, as far as I know. And, if they are willing to live in trailers, and that still enables them to even send money home, then what does that tell us? That could equally well be used as an argument to say that we are living too luxurious.

Lastly, the minimum wage (should you work a fulltime working week) is 800 euro's higher than what is guaranteed as the existence minimum (Bijstand), provided that you don't have children.


Ofcourse we can discuss rights, but to change rights on one side, also need changes on the other side. You can't just simply put more weight on 1 side and expect to keep all in balance.
The changes for example in minimum wage will be offset by more jobs and more possibilities for people. It is not that one right has to be substituted for the other, that is nonsense. And if changes in rights really have to be balanced out, then the companies are now much worse off then they were before. They gave away many of the rights they had over workers. So, the lowering of the minimum wage is making a bit up for the sacrifices of the past :P

And another thing, if collectivism is the opposite of selfish, I'm glade to be collectivist.
Collectivism is only not selfish if you take into account everything holistically (all the people, all the environment etc.) and even then it is selfish because you want the best for this holistic entity.

One last question for Charles: Do you think the government should take over, or fund an organisation like the Vakantiebank?
(editado)

It is kind of funny that I am sometimes completely on Charles' side and sometimes completely on Levitate's side in discussions.

Well, you bring in the argument of the macro-factors, limited food and resources etc., yourself. That is why I jumped at it.

True, but I was talking about our expenses. Ofcourse everyone in the whole world is feeling these higher prices, some even more as us in the first world, but to make it a good discussion we then have to look at % of the income needed for food, water, housing etc in all countries and that's a bit to much. That's why it's to complicated to discuss the world average. But if these % is to much compaired to income, poverty will feel the same when there is not enough money for 3 meals a day, doesn't matter in which country this happens.

What I am arguing is that although wages will become lower, this will be offset by lower prices (I am aware that this is not the case for every product or service), savings for the government (you should not forget that the poorer people also receive the most money from the government) and non-monetary benefits of a higher participation.

I don't believe in lower prices :) I can't think of any product that has become cheaper after the right price was set. All only became more expensive.

And yes, poorer people need more help, but the question that comes to my mind is how it's possible that people with a 40 hour job can live below the poverty line because of the fix costs, that's not right. It's just not right to give these people even less with lower minimum wages.

The Eastern European workers have to earn the minimum wage, as far as I know. And, if they are willing to live in trailers, and that still enables them to even send money home, then what does that tell us? That could equally well be used as an argument to say that we are living too luxurious.

Yes, they also have to earn the minimum wages like everyone else working in the Netherlands. But if your fix costs are much lower in your own country and you only need to rent a cheap trailer/appartement with a few persons (or even paid by the companie you are working for) and buy food and drinks in the country you are working, it's completely different as living in that country with the high fix costs.

And you can't expect of people living below the poverty line to rent a cheap trailer to have a bit more money, knowing that they often already don't live in very nice houses/appartements and areas. Then you turning it around I think. Living in first world countries is just expensive, yes you can have more but just as well have less because of whatever circumstances they got in to. Most are poor not because they chosen to be poor but because it happened.

Lastly, the minimum wage (should you work a fulltime working week) is 800 euro's higher than what is guaranteed as the existence minimum (Bijstand), provided that you don't have children.

If you live on your own this isn't the problem indeed. The moment you have kids it's a completely different story and often these people are those who have problems.

The changes for example in minimum wage will be offset by more jobs and more possibilities for people. It is not that one right has to be substituted for the other, that is nonsense. And if changes in rights really have to be balanced out, then the companies are now much worse off then they were before. They gave away many of the rights they had over workers. So, the lowering of the minimum wage is making a bit up for the sacrifices of the past :P

Well, companies made enough profits last few decades, they never did this well. Only because of some criminals in nice suits who made a mess of it we now have a crisis. And this crisis is being misused to turn things around in favour of the elite. The money that has been lost because of this mess should be taken from those who made a mess of it and still earned a lot by this so called crisis, not from those who coudn't do anything about. For example banks that are financially helped with our tax money after they messed it up are now making billions of profits again, take that money.

One last question for Charles: Do you think the government should take over, or fund an organisation like the Vakantiebank?

First of all, I think in a country like ours things as 'vakantiebank' and 'voedselbanken' shouldn't be needed, there is enough for everyone to prevent poverty. Rich vs poor isn't ok, rich vs normal is ok. And to answer your question, the moment it's needed the government has to step in to prevent poverty, they should, and not to fund these organisations as 'vakantiebank' and 'voedselbanken' but to prevent they are needed.

It is kind of funny that I am sometimes completely on Charles' side and sometimes completely on Levitate's side in discussions.

It's not all black or white ;P

Yeah, you can do that. Like what happened in the 20th century: one side (the employees) got more weight (as they had none before). So it's possible to do a little bit of that weight away now.

The point is how it looked like in the 19th and part of the 20th century. I would like to see ppl like you (or the leaders of the parties who are sooo for cheap work) work like my great grandfather worked in the weaving mill 6 days a week for 10 hours and a 1 hour footwalk to get there (just in case you wonder, you wouldn't last a month, as would I). with not enough money to educate your children as you would have wanted.
There is a reason there are unions, parties for the working class, ideologies and so on today. Like in every system with greedy ppl back in the days and nowadays ppl exploit their power. But if you would follow your preposition consequently we should have dictatorships in our countries (kind of funny thought at first but it is logical, not a thought of me btw.)

So in a way to shorten it you are a greedy, selfish person who is ready to exploit ppl who have not been so fortunate by nature or their family background as you have been. That makes you an opportunist a person I despise but learned to live with. I only have one wish for ppl like that: that they one day have to feel what it feels like.

True, but I was talking about our expenses. Ofcourse everyone in the whole world is feeling these higher prices, some even more as us in the first world, but to make it a good discussion we then have to look at % of the income needed for food, water, housing etc in all countries and that's a bit to much. That's why it's to complicated to discuss the world average. But if these % is to much compaired to income, poverty will feel the same when there is not enough money for 3 meals a day, doesn't matter in which country this happens.

I don't believe in lower prices :) I can't think of any product that has become cheaper after the right price was set. All only became more expensive. And yes, poorer people need more help, but the question that comes to my mind is how it's possible that people with a 40 hour job can live below the poverty line because of the fix costs, that's not right. It's just not right to give these people even less with lower minimum wages.
Yes, they also have to earn the minimum wages like everyone else working in the Netherlands. But if your fix costs are much lower in your own country and you only need to rent a cheap trailer/appartement with a few persons (or even paid by the companie you are working for) and buy food and drinks in the country you are working, it's completely different as living in that country with the high fix costs.

And you can't expect of people living below the poverty line to rent a cheap trailer to have a bit more money, knowing that they often already don't live in very nice houses/appartements and areas. Then you turning it around I think. Living in first world countries is just expensive, yes you can have more but just as well have less because of whatever circumstances they got in to. Most are poor not because they chosen to be poor but because it happened.
You made the claim about 1 in 10 living below the poverty line. How many of these 1 in 10 has a fulltime job (if you have any data on that)? What do the other people do in their lives to make sure that they earn enough? Where do they spend their money on? And don’t forget that there are a bunch of other subsidy mechanisms for poorer people as well, several allowances, refunds of local taxes etc. The reality is now often that if you are start working you only earn a bit more, if at all, because you lose many of these subsidies.

The fixed costs in Eastern Europe don’t matter, as the workers are living here. And if the company pays the housing for the Eastern European guy, then you should wonder even more why they hire a Pole instead of a Dutchman. If we turn it around once more, what makes the Eastern European person different from the Dutch that he can he live in a trailer and we can’t?
And people that are poor because they are unable to work for example should be supported at all times.
Well, companies made enough profits last few decades, they never did this well. Only because of some criminals in nice suits who made a mess of it we now have a crisis. And this crisis is being misused to turn things around in favour of the elite. The money that has been lost because of this mess should be taken from those who made a mess of it and still earned a lot by this so called crisis, not from those who coudn't do anything about. For example banks that are financially helped with our tax money after they messed it up are now making billions of profits again, take that money.
The banks thing is a flaw of the system, because the banks had to be protected in order for them not to go bankrupt (and cause even bigger), but if they are to be saved, there is no incentive anymore to be cautious. Scandals like the recent Libor are different and will be treated differently. And the crisis could have had another cause as well (suppose a massive spike in energy prices), and we could have had the discussion even without the crisis. Moreover, the non-monetary benefits of working are the greatest for the people that are not working now because they would normally be too expensive. They are absent for the rich.

First of all, I think in a country like ours things as 'vakantiebank' and 'voedselbanken' shouldn't be needed, there is enough for everyone to prevent poverty. Rich vs poor isn't ok, rich vs normal is ok. And to answer your question, the moment it's needed the government has to step in to prevent poverty, they should, and not to fund these organisations as 'vakantiebank' and 'voedselbanken' but to prevent they are needed.
Okay, that was just what I wanted to know. No implications further for the discussion.

The point is how it looked like in the 19th and part of the 20th century. I would like to see ppl like you (or the leaders of the parties who are sooo for cheap work) work like my great grandfather worked in the weaving mill 6 days a week for 10 hours and a 1 hour footwalk to get there (just in case you wonder, you wouldn't last a month, as would I). with not enough money to educate your children as you would have wanted.
There is a reason there are unions, parties for the working class, ideologies and so on today. Like in every system with greedy ppl back in the days and nowadays ppl exploit their power. But if you would follow your preposition consequently we should have dictatorships in our countries (kind of funny thought at first but it is logical, not a thought of me btw.)

So in a way to shorten it you are a greedy, selfish person who is ready to exploit ppl who have not been so fortunate by nature or their family background as you have been. That makes you an opportunist a person I despise but learned to live with. I only have one wish for ppl like that: that they one day have to feel what it feels like.
We are talking about a lowering of the minimum wages, not the abolition of the entire system of workers rights and stuff. This is all done with the best intentions. To get the economy going, to get people working instead of them being at home and to save on the government expenditures (which is definitely needed at the moment).

Economics one on one.
Minimum wage equals social security payments.
ergo you don't need a minimum wage if you have social security.
ergo you need a higher minimum wage if you want ppl to work for better money than they get from social security.
oh what is the consequence of that?
Either higher minimum wage or no social security, lesser minimum wage is not the key!
You can read that in every economics book of the past 50 years. Just because some stupid politicians who have never taken their hands on a book but are taking our money and spending it senseless say things loud and in a camera doesn't make it right. It usually is fatally wrong as history has shown all the time.

oh wait, it can work with small minimum wage:
if you intend to start establishing yourself as a low income country which produces mass products with a large and cheap workforce, while education and job opportunities are only available for a few. Oh that sounds great.

The minimum wage in the Netherlands is already higher than the social security. Moreover, the reasoning is that you create jobs when you lower the minimum wage, and that would get people out of social security. If vacancies do not get filled, you might consider lowering the social security (for those not willing to work), or increasing the minimum wage again.

if the social security is higher than the minimum wage (minus taxes, housing, social expenses) multiplied with ~ 25-40 hours of work a week, the minimum wage is not a minimum wage anymore. The social security is.
But if you lower the social security significantly you are back to the days of the 20's and 30's of the last century in Europe. You know, back in the days when a major public society had to live from day to day work and feed themselves in soup kitchens.
Big companies would love that because work is cheap again, but the merely educated man will struggle to survive from day to day and working is more interesting because it is the only option than studying to work yourself up.
Plus the Tax income of the government will decrease significantly.
Oh and what happened with Europe when a large workforce wasn't able to educate themselves and looked for easy answers (back then there were other problems too, especially in Germany) but in the end that was one of the problems that lead to either communists or fascists. And we all know how that ended.
It is basically like playing with the devil.
There are nowadays other keys to solve our problems but you can't explain them in three sentences. And that is a problem.