A: I'm going to be unabashed with promoting progressive wage because I believe it's the better wage system. It's the better way to narrow the income gap by enabling people to do better.
Progressive wage is not about wages only, it is about the skills ladder for workers to learn, the career ladder for the workers to climb as well as a productivity ladder to make the job #easiersafersmarter. #betterthanminimumwage
Better than minimum wage - The Labour Movement of Singapore
B: I shared this on my wall too. :)
It's an uphill task so far as it's been voluntary for employers to pay their workers progressive wage, but come August (i think), the law will kick in for the cleaning sector, so it'll be mandatory for employers in the cleaning sector to pay progressive wage.
Me: Problems with the progressive wage model | The Online Citizen
A: Gabriel, can you highlight the point that the TOC article is trying to make, and I'll address the points? It seems to be going round in circles.
If the author is worried that there will no longer be general cleaners, then I'm happy if the job can be upgraded to a point where workers are skilled workers and we are a society responsible enough to keep our living environment clean. I've lived in Amsterdam for a few years and cleaners there have a much easier job than our cleaners here.
And the author cited employers resistant to progressive wage, that's where the union is fighting against, the employers are resistant to paying workers fairly! And when NTUC announced that the government will make progressive wage mandatory for the cleaning sector, the employers were quick to announce that they will pass the cost to the consumers. That's totally unfair because there are productivity gains with the planned increase, there's money that the employers claim from the government to pay workers more.
Don't be hoodwinked by employers. Do the right thing as each of us have a part to play to uplift the lives of low wage workers, of every worker!
C: “We have never claimed to be ‘balanced’,” said Andrew Loh. Joshua Chiang, who was TOC editor shortly before the election, added, “We are the balance.”
Me: C, That doesn't mean that every article is unbalanced.
Also, just because they are not 'balanced' does not mean that they are wrong.
Here 'balance' refers to an editorial viewpoint and not the lack of making things up. In journalistic parlance, 'balance' means giving two sides of an issue.
C: Nah, the whole purpose of TOC is to tilt the scale the other way. Not interested in truth at all. If you want truth for truth's sake then you just have to be balanced.
Me: What would a 'balanced' view of the Holocaust look like?
C: Here's the article from Cherian George about TOC's "balance".
journalism.sg » Diverse strategies in political blogs' election coverage
BTW, why the need to sidetrack so far? Don't we have enough local examples?
Politics is dirty, and the end justifies the means. Always.
Me: The example is to prove by contradiction that your claim about TOC cannot be true.
About those industry funded GMO studies… « Biology Fortified, Inc.
"Dismissing an entire body of research because it’s supposedly bought and paid for is foolish and lazy.
When you shout ‘Conflict of Interest’ before evaluating the evidence and analysis, it becomes an excuse for discounting inconvenient evidence. Asking about conflicts of interest should be a safeguard against getting snookered by weak evidence. Instead, it becomes an excuse for dismissing good evidence. Examining the soundness of the evidence must come first. Then you can decide whether questions of funding and loyalties are relevant. This is how you maintain a firm footing on solid ground. Use awareness of conflicts of interest to avoid motivated reasoning. Otherwise you are only fueling the fire of your own biases"
If the only thing you can say about a claim is that the people making it are biased, then you are ceding the intellectual high ground.
Anyway, if you mouth platitudes about "Politics is dirty, and the end justifies the means. Always." and that you can't trust "unbalanced" sources, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander and we can dismiss everything "Fabrications about the PAP", the Straits Times and Ministers say.
C: Ah, you are quoting TOC as if it's the Bible. I think nothing can be discussed then. TOC is always right.
And further, neither of us are experts on the Holocaust. So why not stick to local topical events that we can at least safely discuss on equal basis?
Me: I don't know what you're on about
A asked me: "can you highlight the point that the TOC article is trying to make, and I'll address the points"
I am not quoting TOC to justify TOC - I am quoting TOC to discuss the points it makes. That is how educated people decide on what is true and what is false, instead of lazily dismissing everything they do not like.
You do not need to be an expert in the Holocaust to think that it happened. I think it is much easier and uncontroversial to say that the Holocaust happened than to decide if the Progressive Wage model works or does not work.
Earlier (partially covered in Balderdash: Possibly The Worst Economic Analogy I've Seen):
Me (on Progressive Wage is more than Minimum Wage - Fabrications About The PAP): Seriously, this is the best you can come up with?
November 16, 2013 at 11:46pm
Someone: Seriously, "this is the best you can come up with?" is the best you can come up with?
November 17, 2013 at 12:25am
Me: My past experience has been that posts here get ignored, but since you asked:
*extensive critique of why the Char Kway Teow analogy sucks*
November 17, 2013 at 12:29am
Someone: *crickets* (i.e. no response)
Me: What did I say? Ignored as usual.
November 18, 2013 at 12:48am