Posted by on December 5, 2013

An NPR article today chronicles the increasing debate around raising the minim wage. The debate raises a dilemma…Increased wages will likely increase prices. Not saying that’s a good reason for not raising wages. However, if hamburger prices go up, there could be a bizarre cycle. Let alone the quality of the food, sadly I think a fair number of lower-income families depend on these places to feed their kids. If prices for these foods exceeds their ability to pay for them, what then? Obviously (?) a minimum-wage increase across the board is needed. But if wages increase, then prices increase, does that really solve anything? I don’t know.

Perhaps it’s time to change the game instead of trying to change the rules?

Liked it? Become a Copiosis Patron

Comments

  1. Don Vande Krol
    December 9, 2013

    Leave a Reply

    >Perhaps it’s time to change the game instead of trying to change the rules?<

    Changing the rules changes the game, yes? I'm going to assume that we are referring to the Game of Life. One of the problems with the rules of the current game, is that no distinction is made between what is required to play the game (necessities), and what makes the game more fun and interesting (luxuries). The distinction is fairly obvious: necessities are finite (air, water, food, and shelter), luxuries are infinite (desire for more than what is needed). Does anybody like playing a game with those who have an unfair advantage? Say, for instance, a game of Monopoly which began with an unequal distribution of play money. Or, let's say that we are running a race in which times are compared, but some are required to run uphill over rough terrain while others run on a smooth level track.
    One of the "winners" of the current game recently commented on FB, "Inequality is among the greatest concepts man ever devised. It's what drives achievement." I think this is partially true. The rules of a Copiosis game would result in an unequal distribution of luxuries (there would be an equal access to necessities) but those luxuries would be gained by enabling others to make achievements and enjoy the game to a greater degree. .Unlike the current rules where winners are decided on the basis of how much they can take for themselves, the winners in the game of Copiosis are decided by how much they can give.

    • Copiosis
      December 9, 2013

      Leave a Reply

      “Inequality is among the greatest concepts man ever devised. It’s what drives achievement.” It is sad, but true. And exhausting. I wonder if it is necessary though? Does a mother raise her kids in return for access to gain an advantage? I wonder. Does an artist paint a painting to gain an advantage? I wonder.
      You’re right, in Copiosis, luxuries are inequitably distributed. But as you point out, the ones with an “unequal” share of luxuries have produced an “unequal” share of benefit to others. I think that’s a game worth playing….and winning…if there is such a thing as winning the game of “making other people’s lives better.”

      • Don Vande Krol
        December 9, 2013

        Leave a Reply

        It seems that Copiosis might qualify as that rare game which results in a win/win rather than win/lose. I like to compete and win, don’t like to lose – and don’t like it when those I care about become losers.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: