quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

quote:

quote:

quote:


That may be fine for the individual, but if society and businesses still need that job to be done, then it doesn’t serve anyone’s interests to intentionally create stigmas and powerful disincentives to anyone actually doing the job.
And if we really don’t need these jobs to be done, why would anyone waste money to hire someone just to have them do pointless busywork? Does that make any sense from a business point of view?

If business can't find anyone willing to work the job at the wages offered, then what?

That doesn’t answer the question, though.
Does business really need these jobs to be done? You say that a minimum wage is a disincentive for businesses to hire. Your suggestion implies that they might hire someone to do a job at $5 an hour, but not at $7 an hour, because that’s too much. But what job is “necessary” at $5 an hour that it would suddenly become “unnecessary” at $7 an hour? Do you see what I’m getting at?

quote:

quote:

quote:

But the stigma also has other consequences, as you made the point about the guy earning $15/hr. If the minimum wage rises, then he’s going to want a comparable raise due to the stigma of earning at or near minimum wage. It seems that it has very little to do with any scientific or practical “business” concern as much as it has to do with pacification of egos. That’s where the argument starts to break down.

The minimum wage is all about pacification of egos. We're defining the value of a job that requires little to no skill; a job that pretty much anyone can do.

And listening to some employers talk, it’s a job that very few people actually want to do. We’ve often heard it said that these are the jobs which Americans don’t want, which justifies rather open immigration policies and encourages turning the blind eye to illegal immigration. That’s another problem with having such a stigma.

quote:

I would also suggest that these are NOT jobs that “pretty much anyone can do.” Companies might think that anyone can do them, but given the rapid decline in quality and service in American businesses across the board, they might have to think again.

quote:

I don’t see that the minimum wage pacifies anyone’s ego, either.
However, one point you raised earlier was in regard to the guy earning $15 per hour and how a minimum wage increase would cause him to demand a comparable wage increase. If that’s a valid position to take, then why shouldn’t a person who is at least doing some measure of work be justified in getting a minimum wage that would give them a better standard of living than those who do no work at all?

quote:

quote:

Increasing the minimum wage that someone can offer means the standards for that position will go up, too.

Not necessarily. The price of food has been going up lately, but the quality hasn’t gotten any better. That same gallon of gas keeps fluctuating in price, but the quality still remains the same. The minimum wage has to keep up with the cost of living, so if businesses don’t want to have to pay a higher minimum wage, all they have to do is stop raising prices. It’s really that simple.

quote:

quote:


Under the guise of caring about "the poor" or "the working class," the opportunities for those who have the least skills to offer will be reduced.

Well, it’s not as if these businesses were doing anyone any favors or really offering much in the way of “opportunities.” They never cared about the poor or working classes anyway, so it always struck me as rather odd that they suddenly pretend to care whenever there’s talk of raising the minimum wage.

quote:

quote:

And that makes it more difficult for those people to find positions where they can gain skills that will help them merit positions that offer higher wages.

In the old days, companies used to train their employees and give them incentives to stay with the company – possibly their entire lives. Nowadays, it’s just not like that anymore. The sage advice these days is to change companies after about 5-7 years, as companies with 20-30 year employees are a thing of the past. Employees are more disposable; turnover is higher.

quote:

quote:

Why aren't people allowed to agree to work for wages below the minimum wage?

I can see how it might be beneficial to introduce a short-term (30-90 day) “training wage” or “probationary wage” which might be lower than minimum wage as a kind of try-out stage.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, I wish there was more of a stigma on public assistance. It used to be that way. I would much rather people earn their own way, but still have a net to catch those who fall on rough times.

Well, again, what you’re addressing is a cultural matter, not something can be fixed systemically.

Yet, that's what's going on, no?

Of course, but it seems that the solution you’re offering is to introduce a laissez-faire economic system and limited government. That won’t fix the underlying problem.

quote:

quote:

quote:

It comes down to how we vote. You don't want a crook running government, don't vote for a crook.

I try, but I can only cast one vote. All the other voters are a different story.

James Traficant ran a re-election campaign from prison, after he was convicted of racketeering. He did not win, but he did get votes. Really makes one scratch one's head.

I haven’t heard that name in a long time. I recall that he was actually pretty popular for a long time, but I’m not sure what caused him to crash and burn like that. Another case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” I guess.

quote:

quote:

But, that is a voter's right, isn't it? Everyone makes a value assessment when they choose. Even if it's a choice between getting X now at the expense of Y. Which do you want first, X or Y? If you can't afford Y, yet, do you placate yourself with X, even though it makes attaining Y that much further out? If your issue is that you don't want to vote for a crook, then don't. If you can't find a candidate to vote for that isn't a crook, that's another story.

Well, of course, and no one is disputing that it’s the voter’s right to vote for whomever he/she chooses. But we’re also discussing the results of all these individual choices and how they affect the country we live in.
As I see it, we as voters not only have the right to rule our nation, but also the responsibility to rule it wisely. That’s what so many people seem to miss.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I understand what you are saying, but, personally, I don't care how much money someone has in their life, as long as they got it legally.

“Legally” is a tricky word to use here, especially if we’re talking about wealth which was gained within the United States. I see no reason to be coy about how the wealthy in this country got to where they’re at.

Oh? Do tell.

Well, there’s a lot to tell in terms of the acquisition of wealth and resources during the history of our country. I’m sure you know much of our history already (as you’ve eloquently demonstrated so many times before), so as I said, there’s no reason to be coy about any of it.

quote:

quote:

I don’t really care about Paris Hilton. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, either the media want to distract the public with her antics, or there is a significant portion of the populace which finds her interesting enough to elevate her to celebrity status. Either way, it’s a sad commentary on what our culture has degenerated to.
But all of this is beside the point I was trying to make earlier. Sometimes, when business types scream about “big government” and “tyranny” all because they may have to pay a few extra pennies in taxes or just a wee bit extra in minimum wage, it just makes me roll my eyes. They’re still doing okay; they’re still living comfortable, luxury lives – far better than the vast majority of the rest of the people on this planet. Is that not good enough for them?

I agree with Paris Hilton's popularity being unfathomable.
It is rarely about paying a "few extra pennies," or "a wee bit extra."

But it’s not all that bad for them, is it? Do they think they’re going to end up in some Siberian gulag?

quote:

quote:

We don't get to define what is "good enough" for anyone but ourselves.

I can still ask the question. This becomes even more imperative if they use their wealth and power to influence politicians to support what they believe to be “good enough.” If they’re against taxes or raising wages (and they have every right to be), then I have the right to ask why. Of course, they don’t have to answer, but if I find their reasoning to be specious, then I will say so.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Sure, Paris Hilton is wealthy, and seems to be enjoying herself. But there are others who don’t seem happy with what they have, or they seem obsessively worried that someone might have more or that some government might try to take it.

And, there are others that aren't happy with what they (the wealthy), and want it for themselves (the not wealthy). But, rather than take the difficult road, they choose the government option.

I’m not sure what that means when you say “rather than take the difficult road.” I’m not sure if I agree with some of the implied assumptions here. It implies that the government option is some kind of “easy road,” which I don’t agree with. It implies that the wealthy got to where they’re at by following some kind of “difficult road,” which may be true for some, but not all. It also implies that following the “difficult road” will lead to wealth, but for most, it will not. Also, people can’t take the difficult road if they can’t even find it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

No, government doesn't want businesses to fail. I argue that they shouldn't prop businesses up, though. Not propping a business up doesn't meant you want it to fail, though.

I think that propping up business is more an indication that something within the overall system is failing.
I always keep in mind that much of our system is based on faith, and it’s largely been up to the government to maintain that faith in the system. They’re not just propping up a business, they’re also propping up an illusion in order to keep the faith. The last thing they want is for anyone to panic. Whenever there’s widespread panic and fear in a society, bad things start to happen.

Better to let the emperor think he has clothes on?

I didn’t say that. But a naked emperor is no cause for panic. When people have to bring wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread, perhaps the emperor should go naked at that point. I know I will.

quote:

quote:

Yep. The argument that we had to bail out the automotive sector because we'd need the vehicle manufacturing ability in case of war was trotted out to defend the bailouts, before, too. That ignores what tends to happen when companies fail.

But why would they fail? The whole notion behind the bailout is that the companies wouldn’t fail.

quote:

quote:

Failed companies don't disappear from existence. They leave remnants. Drive through downtown Toledo, Ohio, and look at the boarded up buildings for proof.

What’s preventing other companies from moving into those buildings?

quote:

quote:

The manufacturing plants wouldn't have disappeared. The capacity wouldn't have disappeared. Penske was going to buy Saturn (not sure why that deal fell through) and keep making those vehicles. One has to wonder if Ford would have bought up any part of GM or Chrysler.
In an ironic twist, the iconic Jeep, that was originally an American WWII vehicle manufacturer, has been owned by a German company (Daimler) and is now owned by an Italian company (Fiat).

It’s hard to keep straight who owns what anymore. They keep having all these buyouts and mergers.

quote:

quote:

Discount cars? The Yugo comes to mind...

I thought of the Yugo, too. But there are other countries which seem poised to enter the car market, which would mean even more competition for the Big 3.

quote:

quote:

quote:

True, although if there are able-bodied people who are genuinely looking for work and can’t seem to find anything, then that’s a problem that might have to be addressed at a societal level (which it already is, to some extent). It’s not that their “right to work” is being violated, although if someone truly wants to work, I don’t see how society can just toss them aside.

Society isn't tossing them aside. "Society" may be pricing them out of the workplace with minimum wage laws.

What else can society do?

quote:

quote:

quote:

That does seem a bit strange to me. While I won’t fault the union for sticking up for their own membership, I would still wonder if there’s something more behind the scenes that might be going on.

I would have thought someone here would have dug that up in defense of the union. That no one has, might indicate that there isn't much more going on (which does not mean there isn't anything else going on).

It’s hard to say, although I doubt that anyone really cares enough about that union to defend it or find out more about this. It really seems like small potatoes, when you really look at it. It might bring up larger issues about the general relationship between management and labor in this country, both past and present.

quote:

quote:

I am not dismissing the work unions originally did. I just don't believe their prior work and achievements justify their continued existence when they aren't serving the same purpose. Employee abuse has been reduced to a great extent because of unions. Getting defense against employee abuse codified has been a huge achievement for unions. But, now that employee abuse isn't as rampant, what's next?

Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

quote:

quote:

"Buy American." That doesn't really mean "buy American." That means "buy Union." American made vehicles with foreign nameplates are sometimes even more "American" than vehicles with American nameplates. My Dad was looking at a Toyota and a Dodge. The Dodge dealer made the "foreign car" pitch. Dad hit it out of the park by noting the Toyota he was considering was actually built in America while the Dodge he was considering was built in Canada (note: that's not a disparagement of Canada, but a comment that Canada is not part of the USA), so buying the Dodge wasn't supporting Americans as much as buying the Toyota would be. The claim of the profits going to the country of the car company also gets lost as Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles are included in the "Buy American" campaign, yet are owned by Fiat, which is not in the USA.

“Buy American” has gotten somewhat lost in our country’s forays into globalism (and its resulting impact on our geopolitical perceptions, which should not be ignored in all of this).
The bottom line is: There are consequences to whatever we do. As you’ve pointed out, there are risks and potential consequences to what liberals may propose, just as there are risks and potential consequences to what conservatives may propose.
My view is that we can’t really go on business as usual and expect anything good to happen. If this country is hurting (and we both agree that it is), then we need to start thinking in other terms. “Business as usual” got us this way, so maybe it’s time to stop listening to that broken record.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Pricing them out with minimum wage laws?  The fuckin CEO of fucking Shitburger McDonalds recently tripled his salary, and their donkeydickburgers didnt go up one cent.

And a minimum wage law might have been something that unions did, but they visit those more often than every 30 fuckin years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Rent caps generally lead to shit holes. Adding the tax in will likely lead to government taking over the rental business, too. I'm sure that will go swimmingly.

There are shit holes either way. I don’t think that government would need to take over the rental business. The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

quote:

quote:


That may be fine for the individual, but if society and businesses still need that job to be done, then it doesn’t serve anyone’s interests to intentionally create stigmas and powerful disincentives to anyone actually doing the job.
And if we really don’t need these jobs to be done, why would anyone waste money to hire someone just to have them do pointless busywork? Does that make any sense from a business point of view?

If business can't find anyone willing to work the job at the wages offered, then what?

That doesn’t answer the question, though.

Does business really need these jobs to be done? You say that a minimum wage is a disincentive for businesses to hire. Your suggestion implies that they might hire someone to do a job at $5 an hour, but not at $7 an hour, because that’s too much. But what job is “necessary” at $5 an hour that it would suddenly become “unnecessary” at $7 an hour? Do you see what I’m getting at?

quote:

quote:

But the stigma also has other consequences, as you made the point about the guy earning $15/hr. If the minimum wage rises, then he’s going to want a comparable raise due to the stigma of earning at or near minimum wage. It seems that it has very little to do with any scientific or practical “business” concern as much as it has to do with pacification of egos. That’s where the argument starts to break down.

The minimum wage is all about pacification of egos. We're defining the value of a job that requires little to no skill; a job that pretty much anyone can do.

And listening to some employers talk, it’s a job that very few people actually want to do. We’ve often heard it said that these are the jobs which Americans don’t want, which justifies rather open immigration policies and encourages turning the blind eye to illegal immigration. That’s another problem with having such a stigma.

I would also suggest that these are NOT jobs that “pretty much anyone can do.” Companies might think that anyone can do them, but given the rapid decline in quality and service in American businesses across the board, they might have to think again.

I don’t see that the minimum wage pacifies anyone’s ego, either.

However, one point you raised earlier was in regard to the guy earning $15 per hour and how a minimum wage increase would cause him to demand a comparable wage increase. If that’s a valid position to take, then why shouldn’t a person who is at least doing some measure of work be justified in getting a minimum wage that would give them a better standard of living than those who do no work at all?

quote:


Increasing the minimum wage that someone can offer means the standards for that position will go up, too.

Not necessarily. The price of food has been going up lately, but the quality hasn’t gotten any better. That same gallon of gas keeps fluctuating in price, but the quality still remains the same. The minimum wage has to keep up with the cost of living, so if businesses don’t want to have to pay a higher minimum wage, all they have to do is stop raising prices. It’s really that simple.

quote:


Under the guise of caring about "the poor" or "the working class," the opportunities for those who have the least skills to offer will be reduced.

Well, it’s not as if these businesses were doing anyone any favors or really offering much in the way of “opportunities.” They never cared about the poor or working classes anyway, so it always struck me as rather odd that they suddenly pretend to care whenever there’s talk of raising the minimum wage.

quote:


And that makes it more difficult for those people to find positions where they can gain skills that will help them merit positions that offer higher wages.

In the old days, companies used to train their employees and give them incentives to stay with the company – possibly their entire lives. Nowadays, it’s just not like that anymore. The sage advice these days is to change companies after about 5-7 years, as companies with 20-30 year employees are a thing of the past. Employees are more disposable; turnover is higher.

quote:


Why aren't people allowed to agree to work for wages below the minimum wage?

I can see how it might be beneficial to introduce a short-term (30-90 day) “training wage” or “probationary wage” which might be lower than minimum wage as a kind of try-out stage.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, I wish there was more of a stigma on public assistance. It used to be that way. I would much rather people earn their own way, but still have a net to catch those who fall on rough times.

Well, again, what you’re addressing is a cultural matter, not something can be fixed systemically.

Yet, that's what's going on, no?

Of course, but it seems that the solution you’re offering is to introduce a laissez-faire economic system and limited government. That won’t fix the underlying problem.

quote:

quote:

quote:

It comes down to how we vote. You don't want a crook running government, don't vote for a crook.

I try, but I can only cast one vote. All the other voters are a different story.

James Traficant ran a re-election campaign from prison, after he was convicted of racketeering. He did not win, but he did get votes. Really makes one scratch one's head.

I haven’t heard that name in a long time. I recall that he was actually pretty popular for a long time, but I’m not sure what caused him to crash and burn like that. Another case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” I guess.

quote:


But, that is a voter's right, isn't it? Everyone makes a value assessment when they choose. Even if it's a choice between getting X now at the expense of Y. Which do you want first, X or Y? If you can't afford Y, yet, do you placate yourself with X, even though it makes attaining Y that much further out? If your issue is that you don't want to vote for a crook, then don't. If you can't find a candidate to vote for that isn't a crook, that's another story.

Well, of course, and no one is disputing that it’s the voter’s right to vote for whomever he/she chooses. But we’re also discussing the results of all these individual choices and how they affect the country we live in.

As I see it, we as voters not only have the right to rule our nation, but also the responsibility to rule it wisely. That’s what so many people seem to miss.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I understand what you are saying, but, personally, I don't care how much money someone has in their life, as long as they got it legally.

“Legally” is a tricky word to use here, especially if we’re talking about wealth which was gained within the United States. I see no reason to be coy about how the wealthy in this country got to where they’re at.

Oh? Do tell.

Well, there’s a lot to tell in terms of the acquisition of wealth and resources during the history of our country. I’m sure you know much of our history already (as you’ve eloquently demonstrated so many times before), so as I said, there’s no reason to be coy about any of it.

quote:

quote:


I don’t really care about Paris Hilton. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, either the media want to distract the public with her antics, or there is a significant portion of the populace which finds her interesting enough to elevate her to celebrity status. Either way, it’s a sad commentary on what our culture has degenerated to.

But all of this is beside the point I was trying to make earlier. Sometimes, when business types scream about “big government” and “tyranny” all because they may have to pay a few extra pennies in taxes or just a wee bit extra in minimum wage, it just makes me roll my eyes. They’re still doing okay; they’re still living comfortable, luxury lives – far better than the vast majority of the rest of the people on this planet. Is that not good enough for them?

I agree with Paris Hilton's popularity being unfathomable.

It is rarely about paying a "few extra pennies," or "a wee bit extra."

But it’s not all that bad for them, is it? Do they think they’re going to end up in some Siberian gulag?

quote:


We don't get to define what is "good enough" for anyone but ourselves.

I can still ask the question. This becomes even more imperative if they use their wealth and power to influence politicians to support what they believe to be “good enough.” If they’re against taxes or raising wages (and they have every right to be), then I have the right to ask why. Of course, they don’t have to answer, but if I find their reasoning to be specious, then I will say so.

quote:

quote:

Sure, Paris Hilton is wealthy, and seems to be enjoying herself. But there are others who don’t seem happy with what they have, or they seem obsessively worried that someone might have more or that some government might try to take it.

And, there are others that aren't happy with what they (the wealthy), and want it for themselves (the not wealthy). But, rather than take the difficult road, they choose the government option.

I’m not sure what that means when you say “rather than take the difficult road.” I’m not sure if I agree with some of the implied assumptions here. It implies that the government option is some kind of “easy road,” which I don’t agree with. It implies that the wealthy got to where they’re at by following some kind of “difficult road,” which may be true for some, but not all. It also implies that following the “difficult road” will lead to wealth, but for most, it will not. Also, people can’t take the difficult road if they can’t even find it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

No, government doesn't want businesses to fail. I argue that they shouldn't prop businesses up, though. Not propping a business up doesn't meant you want it to fail, though.

I think that propping up business is more an indication that something within the overall system is failing.
I always keep in mind that much of our system is based on faith, and it’s largely been up to the government to maintain that faith in the system. They’re not just propping up a business, they’re also propping up an illusion in order to keep the faith. The last thing they want is for anyone to panic. Whenever there’s widespread panic and fear in a society, bad things start to happen.

Better to let the emperor think he has clothes on?

I didn’t say that. But a naked emperor is no cause for panic. When people have to bring wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread, perhaps the emperor should go naked at that point. I know I will.

quote:


Yep. The argument that we had to bail out the automotive sector because we'd need the vehicle manufacturing ability in case of war was trotted out to defend the bailouts, before, too. That ignores what tends to happen when companies fail.

But why would they fail? The whole notion behind the bailout is that the companies wouldn’t fail.

quote:


Failed companies don't disappear from existence. They leave remnants. Drive through downtown Toledo, Ohio, and look at the boarded up buildings for proof.

What’s preventing other companies from moving into those buildings?

quote:


The manufacturing plants wouldn't have disappeared. The capacity wouldn't have disappeared. Penske was going to buy Saturn (not sure why that deal fell through) and keep making those vehicles. One has to wonder if Ford would have bought up any part of GM or Chrysler.

In an ironic twist, the iconic Jeep, that was originally an American WWII vehicle manufacturer, has been owned by a German company (Daimler) and is now owned by an Italian company (Fiat).

It’s hard to keep straight who owns what anymore. They keep having all these buyouts and mergers.

quote:


Discount cars? The Yugo comes to mind...

I thought of the Yugo, too. But there are other countries which seem poised to enter the car market, which would mean even more competition for the Big 3.

quote:

quote:


True, although if there are able-bodied people who are genuinely looking for work and can’t seem to find anything, then that’s a problem that might have to be addressed at a societal level (which it already is, to some extent). It’s not that their “right to work” is being violated, although if someone truly wants to work, I don’t see how society can just toss them aside.

Society isn't tossing them aside. "Society" may be pricing them out of the workplace with minimum wage laws.

What else can society do?

quote:

quote:


That does seem a bit strange to me. While I won’t fault the union for sticking up for their own membership, I would still wonder if there’s something more behind the scenes that might be going on.

I would have thought someone here would have dug that up in defense of the union. That no one has, might indicate that there isn't much more going on (which does not mean there isn't anything else going on).

It’s hard to say, although I doubt that anyone really cares enough about that union to defend it or find out more about this. It really seems like small potatoes, when you really look at it. It might bring up larger issues about the general relationship between management and labor in this country, both past and present.

quote:


I am not dismissing the work unions originally did. I just don't believe their prior work and achievements justify their continued existence when they aren't serving the same purpose. Employee abuse has been reduced to a great extent because of unions. Getting defense against employee abuse codified has been a huge achievement for unions. But, now that employee abuse isn't as rampant, what's next?

Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

quote:


"Buy American." That doesn't really mean "buy American." That means "buy Union." American made vehicles with foreign nameplates are sometimes even more "American" than vehicles with American nameplates. My Dad was looking at a Toyota and a Dodge. The Dodge dealer made the "foreign car" pitch. Dad hit it out of the park by noting the Toyota he was considering was actually built in America while the Dodge he was considering was built in Canada (note: that's not a disparagement of Canada, but a comment that Canada is not part of the USA), so buying the Dodge wasn't supporting Americans as much as buying the Toyota would be. The claim of the profits going to the country of the car company also gets lost as Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles are included in the "Buy American" campaign, yet are owned by Fiat, which is not in the USA.

“Buy American” has gotten somewhat lost in our country’s forays into globalism (and its resulting impact on our geopolitical perceptions, which should not be ignored in all of this).

The bottom line is: There are consequences to whatever we do. As you’ve pointed out, there are risks and potential consequences to what liberals may propose, just as there are risks and potential consequences to what conservatives may propose.

My view is that we can’t really go on business as usual and expect anything good to happen. If this country is hurting (and we both agree that it is), then we need to start thinking in other terms. “Business as usual” got us this way, so maybe it’s time to stop listening to that broken record.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

How do you figure prices would go down?

quote:


It's necessary, but at lower wages, a business can hire more, can't they? At higher wages, more will be expected of each person hired at that wage. More productivity to offset the higher wages. Higher skilled workers will be hired at the expense of the lower skilled, too. It's going to hurt the least skilled.

quote:


What business means when they say that "Americans don't want" those jobs, that's not really true. They don't want those jobs at the wages offered. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, then, could easily be considered turning a blind eye to low skill workers.

quote:

quote:

I don’t see that the minimum wage pacifies anyone’s ego, either.
However, one point you raised earlier was in regard to the guy earning $15 per hour and how a minimum wage increase would cause him to demand a comparable wage increase. If that’s a valid position to take, then why shouldn’t a person who is at least doing some measure of work be justified in getting a minimum wage that would give them a better standard of living than those who do no work at all?

Therein lies the Catch-22. Seriously. Part of the problem certainly is that being on welfare sometimes pays better than working a minimum wage job, and that's a problem. I think there needs to be a culling of the roles to kick off all those who are choosing to be on welfare rather than work. To be clear, I'm talking about a person has the ability to work and still chooses to be on welfare.

quote:

quote:


Well, it’s not as if these businesses were doing anyone any favors or really offering much in the way of “opportunities.” They never cared about the poor or working classes anyway, so it always struck me as rather odd that they suddenly pretend to care whenever there’s talk of raising the minimum wage.

What's really odd is when people believe businesses when they tout that.

quote:


Businesses, unless it's their business model, aren't out for the poor or working class. That's not why companies are started. Sam Walton didn't start his business to hire people. He did it to make money. He decided to fill a need, a demand, in the market and make money doing it. He's really wasn't out to fill the need, but to make money by filling the need.

quote:


Yup. And, since there is a greater number of people they can hire to fill a position, they don't have to offer as high a wage to draw the talent they're looking for.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why aren't people allowed to agree to work for wages below the minimum wage?

I can see how it might be beneficial to introduce a short-term (30-90 day) “training wage” or “probationary wage” which might be lower than minimum wage as a kind of try-out stage.

Doesn't answer the question.

quote:

quote:


I haven’t heard that name in a long time. I recall that he was actually pretty popular for a long time, but I’m not sure what caused him to crash and burn like that. Another case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” I guess.

I don't think he was "Mr. Smith." He did get elected, and he won re-election campaigns, too. He was also involved in racketeering. Once he was found guilty and jailed, he wasn't quite as popular with the voters.

quote:


Yep. I certainly wish we could find a way to force people to pay attention and really think about the candidates and issues prior to voting.

quote:


I'm going to guess that they don't think that. That's not the point, anyway. We have no right to tell a person how much money they can have. And, as long as they are doing it legally (it's pretty tough to change history at this point in time, or am I writing this in the future, so that would be "this point in history"), there isn't much anyone can say about it. Sure, we can whine that they make "enough," but...

quote:


And, for the most part, we agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to buy influence in government.

quote:


The "difficult road" means make it for themselves. And, it's difficult. It's, generally, not easy to make yourself rich. It involves hard work and sacrifice. Many people aren't willing to do one or the other, and some aren't willing to do either.

quote:


And, what is the cause behind the need for a "wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread?"

(Hint: Government action of some sort)

quote:


The fail because of a failed business plan. They fail because they don't meet the demands of the consumers. I could make the greatest gadget of all time, but if no one wants it, or no one is willing to pay the price I demand, it doesn't matter how great my gadget is. I can't sell it if there are no consumers willing to buy it.

quote:


There are many reasons. First of all, there has to be a business willing to move into it. The tax code isn't conducive in Toledo.

quote:


There was an uproar when Krogers decided to close it's only store close to the inner city. The screams were that Krogers had a duty to serve the inner city community. Krogers was closing that location because the theft was so high, they weren't as profitable as they needed to be. If they raised prices to recover the stolen income, they would have been accused of gouging, or pricing out the inner city community. Toledo has issues.

quote:


Kia and Hyundai seemed to have been successful selling less expensive vehicles. And, both have overcome the bulk of the "low quality" reputation they initially had. But, that's not good for the Big 3, either. That could lead to their failing. Again. One has to wonder what the government response would be if that were to happen.

quote:

quote:

quote:


Society isn't tossing them aside. "Society" may be pricing them out of the workplace with minimum wage laws.

What else can society do?

How about not price them out with minimum wage laws?

quote:


The typical relationship between labor and management is shitty, in the US. Both sides are out for themselves and tend to get greedy. If both sides would actually work towards a win-win solution, things would definitely improve.

quote:

quote:


Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

That's on Unions, isn't it? Or, is that going to be the responsibility of the US Government?

quote:


The thing is, we disagree on how to end the "business as usual" cycle. I think we also disagree, to an extent, on what "business as usual" means, as far as how it's occurring.

I'm very glad, though, that we can discuss this like rational adults. Thank you for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

Did you read any of the posted comments?

Now, for the rest of the story. The carpenters union has placed these signs all over Wichita Ks and I have stopped at every one I see to ask what they are disputing. They are complaining about the drywall contractors being non union and not having full medical benefits. HOWEVER, in 20 plus stops, every person holding the signs said they could not talk to me because they were temporary workers and just gave me a colored paper flyer from the union. Hows that for hypocrisy, hiring workers with no benefits to hold a sign complaining about other workers not having benefits!!!

I believe in fair labor practices but not every job on the planet needs to be controlled by a union.

(edit for spelling)

Ah, okay. So the union is unhappy that the company went around them and hired a bunch of drywall guys who are probably illegal immigrants (based on my personal experience) to work for cheap. Gotcha. I think that's a fair thing to picket about.

Obviously, they have the right to picket whatever they want. And if this was a large scale apartment complex or something of that nature, I might be more sympathetic. But a dealership doing some building upgrades hardly seems worth all the trouble they're going through. It seems more like bitching just to make themselves feel relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

How do you figure prices would go down?

I would think that a vacant property tax which doubles every month would likely be a strong incentive for absentee landlords and investment property owners to sell quickly, which would have the effect of lowering prices across the board. Plus, there would be no more vacant lots or boarded up buildings, since there would be next to no incentive to hold on to an unused or vacant property. It would be a win-win all the way around. The only ones who would lose would be the excessively greedy and those who expect to gain something for nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Minimum wage laws have effects far beyond employee wages, though. That guy making $15/hr isn't going to get an increase in pay, but his costs are going to rise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I wonder who, of those non-payers, are still represented by the Unions (that is, do they still get the same benefits/pay).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
I don't know about Canada but there's no obligation to the government to turn a profit in the US. You can continuously lose money and still be in business as far as the IRS is concerned.

If your business hasn't made a profit in.... I think it's 5 years, the IRS will reclassify it as a hobby.

I suppose that's possible. It's been awhile since I've had to look at the tax laws. But I've come close to going that long without a profit before and my accountant has never brought it to my attention.

I think he may be referring to the "3/2 out of 5 rule". The IRS assumes that you'll make a profit either two or three out of every five years. Companies that show a loss for 5 years but still seem able to operate, raise a red flag on the IRS' radar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

How do you figure prices would go down?

I would think that a vacant property tax which doubles every month would likely be a strong incentive for absentee landlords and investment property owners to sell quickly, which would have the effect of lowering prices across the board. Plus, there would be no more vacant lots or boarded up buildings, since there would be next to no incentive to hold on to an unused or vacant property. It would be a win-win all the way around. The only ones who would lose would be the excessively greedy and those who expect to gain something for nothing.

That's an interesting idea but can I poke that thought balloon with a stick?

What about someone like me who, as I get a bit older and a bit sicker, has little desire to assume all the responsibilities that ownership confers?

This Winter has taught me that between the normal groans and squeaks of middle age and my disease's progression is really taking it's toll. I will soon absolutely not be able to handle cutting the lawn and shoveling snow, etc.

I appreciate being able to rent houses as opposed to a townhouse or apartment situation ('cause I intend to play my music as loudly as I can for as long as I'm able).

I appreciate that I may be in the minority, here but if the rental business dies, what about people like me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I see what you're saying, although I'm not sure how renting vs. owning is a factor in this. At least, around here, if someone rents a house, the tenant is still expected to do the yard work (and shoveling, if we had any snow). So, whether you own or rent, you'd still end up being responsible for doing that kind of work (or hiring somebody to do it). I take it that the property owner is responsible for that in your area.

But if you didn't have a huge rent payment every month, you'd have money available to be able to hire someone to do those tasks and still have more money left over every month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I see what you're saying, although I'm not sure how renting vs. owning is a factor in this. At least, around here, if someone rents a house, the tenant is still expected to do the yard work (and shoveling, if we had any snow). So, whether you own or rent, you'd still end up being responsible for doing that kind of work (or hiring somebody to do it). I take it that the property owner is responsible for that in your area.

But if you didn't have a huge rent payment every month, you'd have money available to be able to hire someone to do those tasks and still have more money left over every month.

Yes, the landlord is responsible but I was more interested in your statement that the rental business would disappear?

So, I guess, broadly; what about those that - for whatever reason - prefer to rent?

How does a person own a property and get through those times when they may have a vacancy for three or four months?

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

Did you read any of the posted comments?

Now, for the rest of the story. The carpenters union has placed these signs all over Wichita Ks and I have stopped at every one I see to ask what they are disputing. They are complaining about the drywall contractors being non union and not having full medical benefits. HOWEVER, in 20 plus stops, every person holding the signs said they could not talk to me because they were temporary workers and just gave me a colored paper flyer from the union. Hows that for hypocrisy, hiring workers with no benefits to hold a sign complaining about other workers not having benefits!!!

I believe in fair labor practices but not every job on the planet needs to be controlled by a union.

(edit for spelling)

Ah, okay. So the union is unhappy that the company went around them and hired a bunch of drywall guys who are probably illegal immigrants (based on my personal experience) to work for cheap. Gotcha. I think that's a fair thing to picket about.

Obviously, they have the right to picket whatever they want. And if this was a large scale apartment complex or something of that nature, I might be more sympathetic. But a dealership doing some building upgrades hardly seems worth all the trouble they're going through. It seems more like bitching just to make themselves feel relevant.

I'm not clear on whether the company in question hired some union guys and then some non-union guys, which somehow is what I thought was going on.

I'll be real honest, when we did some minor renovations to our business, I'm 99% sure that that the drywall/assistant guys our contractor hired were illegal immigrants working for cash. So it would be hypocritical for me to say, oh, it was entirely terrible the business did that, how dare they.

quote:


But at the same time, I think it's fair for unions to complain and raise awareness about that stuff. Their role in society is to protect the workers that are members of their organization and make sure they get a decent living.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The tax that I propose would likely do away with the rental business altogether. Everyone would become owners because the prices would go down as to be far more affordable.

How do you figure prices would go down?

I would think that a vacant property tax which doubles every month would likely be a strong incentive for absentee landlords and investment property owners to sell quickly, which would have the effect of lowering prices across the board. Plus, there would be no more vacant lots or boarded up buildings, since there would be next to no incentive to hold on to an unused or vacant property. It would be a win-win all the way around. The only ones who would lose would be the excessively greedy and those who expect to gain something for nothing.

quote:

quote:

It's necessary, but at lower wages, a business can hire more, can't they? At higher wages, more will be expected of each person hired at that wage. More productivity to offset the higher wages. Higher skilled workers will be hired at the expense of the lower skilled, too. It's going to hurt the least skilled.

Possibly, although again, it depends on the job. Some employers will resist hiring anyone who is “overqualified” for a position.

quote:

quote:

What business means when they say that "Americans don't want" those jobs, that's not really true. They don't want those jobs at the wages offered. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, then, could easily be considered turning a blind eye to low skill workers.

Right. But rather than raise the wages, they just sit there and whine about nobody wanting to take their jobs, while going outside the law and expecting the government to turn the blind eye.
This is the business mentality at work. When they can’t win according to the rules, they cheat.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don’t see that the minimum wage pacifies anyone’s ego, either.
However, one point you raised earlier was in regard to the guy earning $15 per hour and how a minimum wage increase would cause him to demand a comparable wage increase. If that’s a valid position to take, then why shouldn’t a person who is at least doing some measure of work be justified in getting a minimum wage that would give them a better standard of living than those who do no work at all?

Therein lies the Catch-22. Seriously. Part of the problem certainly is that being on welfare sometimes pays better than working a minimum wage job, and that's a problem. I think there needs to be a culling of the roles to kick off all those who are choosing to be on welfare rather than work. To be clear, I'm talking about a person has the ability to work and still chooses to be on welfare.

And this is where the problem lies. I keep hearing (not just from you) about how these workers are so low-skilled, not very ambitious, possibly lazy or with a poor ethic, but yet, they’re still working – which is still better than those who don’t work at all.
So, whatever a family of four on welfare would get in the state that pays the highest – take that figure, add 20%, then divide it to figure out what that would be per hour based on a 40-hour work week. That’s what the minimum wage should be.
Heck, if the minimum wage only kept up with the rate of inflation, it should be well over $10 an hour by now.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Well, it’s not as if these businesses were doing anyone any favors or really offering much in the way of “opportunities.” They never cared about the poor or working classes anyway, so it always struck me as rather odd that they suddenly pretend to care whenever there’s talk of raising the minimum wage.

What's really odd is when people believe businesses when they tout that.

Well, I never believed it, but as you’ve probably gathered, I rarely believe anything that business has to say. My grandfather was a salesman all his life, and the main thing that he always used to tell me was, ”They’re in business to make money!” Everything they say will be motivated by that.

quote:

quote:

Businesses, unless it's their business model, aren't out for the poor or working class. That's not why companies are started. Sam Walton didn't start his business to hire people. He did it to make money. He decided to fill a need, a demand, in the market and make money doing it. He's really wasn't out to fill the need, but to make money by filling the need.

Then, when they say that raising the minimum wage will hurt low-skilled workers, why should anyone believe them? They’re just saying that because they don’t want to have to pay higher wages, as it’s all about money for them.

quote:

quote:

Yup. And, since there is a greater number of people they can hire to fill a position, they don't have to offer as high a wage to draw the talent they're looking for.

But as we discussed above (regarding jobs Americans won’t do), we’ve seen that employers will not offer a high wage even if the labor pool is diminished. They’ll just sit there and wait…and wait…and wait…and wonder why no one is applying. Then they’ll whine that American workers are too lazy, unskilled, that immigration policies are too strict, blah, blah, blah. They’ll come up with every excuse in the book rather than face the bleak truth that they might have to come up with a bit more scratch if they want to attract workers.
Workers aren’t the only ones with a sense of entitlement. Businesses often exude the same qualities.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why aren't people allowed to agree to work for wages below the minimum wage?

I can see how it might be beneficial to introduce a short-term (30-90 day) “training wage” or “probationary wage” which might be lower than minimum wage as a kind of try-out stage.

Doesn't answer the question.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I haven’t heard that name in a long time. I recall that he was actually pretty popular for a long time, but I’m not sure what caused him to crash and burn like that. Another case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” I guess.

I don't think he was "Mr. Smith." He did get elected, and he won re-election campaigns, too. He was also involved in racketeering. Once he was found guilty and jailed, he wasn't quite as popular with the voters.

I only have vague memories of it now. I just remember him as a kind of working class, rust belt Democrat during his time.

quote:

quote:

Yep. I certainly wish we could find a way to force people to pay attention and really think about the candidates and issues prior to voting.

I grew up in a somewhat political family. That is, every family gathering always seemed to turn into a discussion about politics (and oftentimes pretty loud). So, for me, it’s just become second nature. As a citizen, I feel compelled to pay attention to politics and events and try to stay informed on the issues as best I can (although I’ll admit I’m probably not as sharp as I used to be; I’ve mellowed a bit).
It’s not just a question of who they vote for or which party, but it’s equally confounding to find so much widespread ignorance on a lot of issues. Especially when it comes to the area of foreign policy and Americans’ woeful lack of knowledge about other nations, their cultures and histories.
True story: Many years ago, I was talking with a co-worker who was telling me about a new employee she met the previous day. He was from Ukraine. She never heard of Ukraine and didn’t know where it was, so she called 8 of her friends. Eight! None of them knew or heard anything about Ukraine. I couldn’t believe it.

quote:

quote:

I'm going to guess that they don't think that. That's not the point, anyway. We have no right to tell a person how much money they can have. And, as long as they are doing it legally (it's pretty tough to change history at this point in time, or am I writing this in the future, so that would be "this point in history"), there isn't much anyone can say about it. Sure, we can whine that they make "enough," but...

I don’t think it’s a matter of telling a person how much money they can have. You raise a key point about making money legally, but as a democratic-republican society, the people have some say about the laws in this country. So with all due respect, when you say “there isn’t much anyone can say about it,” I don’t think that’s correct.

quote:

quote:

And, for the most part, we agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to buy influence in government.

Technically speaking, they’re really not allowed, but it still happens nonetheless.
Maybe they could have stronger anti-corruption laws with teeth in them to act as a powerful disincentive to these kinds of activities in government. And when I say “teeth,” I mean piranha teeth.

quote:

quote:

The "difficult road" means make it for themselves. And, it's difficult. It's, generally, not easy to make yourself rich. It involves hard work and sacrifice. Many people aren't willing to do one or the other, and some aren't willing to do either.

It’s also a matter of ability, upbringing, environment, education, as well as a certain amount of cleverness, savvy, and (sometimes) just plain dumb luck. Some might say it also takes toughness, determination, “balls,” and the willingness to play hardball when necessary. It’s a dog-eat-dog world where nice guys finish last.
That’s not to say that it’s impossible, but I don’t think it’s really so simple as “hard work and sacrifice.” Fact is, some people will make it, but many won’t.
Just like many young people might work hard and sacrifice to become great baseball players, but only a certain number will make the MLB, while some might be stuck in the minors their whole career, and some may not even make their local Little League team.
And not everyone wants to be rich, either. Some people are content with what they have, earning a modest living.

quote:

quote:

And, what is the cause behind the need for a "wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread?"
(Hint: Government action of some sort)

It’s a drastic, last-resort measure that governments might take. That’s why it might be wiser to take action before it reaches the point of desperation and panic.

quote:

quote:

The fail because of a failed business plan. They fail because they don't meet the demands of the consumers. I could make the greatest gadget of all time, but if no one wants it, or no one is willing to pay the price I demand, it doesn't matter how great my gadget is. I can't sell it if there are no consumers willing to buy it.

But if the government bails you out, you’d still be in business, wouldn’t you?
Of course, if it was the greatest gadget of all time, I can’t imagine you not getting some sales.

quote:

quote:

There are many reasons. First of all, there has to be a business willing to move into it. The tax code isn't conducive in Toledo.

I’ve heard that about here, too. But I would also look to who owns those buildings right now.

quote:


There was an uproar when Krogers decided to close it's only store close to the inner city. The screams were that Krogers had a duty to serve the inner city community. Krogers was closing that location because the theft was so high, they weren't as profitable as they needed to be. If they raised prices to recover the stolen income, they would have been accused of gouging, or pricing out the inner city community. Toledo has issues.

I think every city has issues, although I know next to nothing about Toledo. I have some relatives in the Cleveland area, and I visited there a few times as a kid. This would have been back in the 70s and 80s, although I think they’ve since tried to fix up the place. I just found it rather skuzzy, and even a bit scary. And I’ve been to some rough cities in my time; but for whatever reason, Cleveland seemed to scare me the most. I don’t know why, since there are cities with much worse reputations.
There are similar issues with grocery stores here in AZ, although it seems to be more of a problem in the rural areas than in the cities. There was one town where the state gave subsidies to a grocery store chain in order to keep the only grocery store in the town open. Tucson, though, seems a pretty good market for grocery store chains; a good deal of competition. I imagine they must face some level of theft, but it’s apparently not enough to put them out of business. However, some stores invest in hiring security guards and have surveillance cameras and shoplifting detectors.

quote:

quote:

Kia and Hyundai seemed to have been successful selling less expensive vehicles. And, both have overcome the bulk of the "low quality" reputation they initially had. But, that's not good for the Big 3, either. That could lead to their failing. Again. One has to wonder what the government response would be if that were to happen.

I also have to wonder what goes on inside these companies as well. Aren’t their stockholders up in arms about this? They’re the owners of the company, yet they just seem to put up with bad management leading a failing enterprise. Given the humongous salaries these CEOs earn, why wouldn’t the stockholders demand better for their money?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Society isn't tossing them aside. "Society" may be pricing them out of the workplace with minimum wage laws.

What else can society do?

How about not price them out with minimum wage laws?

Okay, but if we do that, what happens when the other shoe drops? I’ll expand on this below.

quote:


The typical relationship between labor and management is shitty, in the US. Both sides are out for themselves and tend to get greedy. If both sides would actually work towards a win-win solution, things would definitely improve.

I suppose my general tendency in life has been to root for the underdog, so my sympathies tend to go with labor over management. Overall, I think most workers just want a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work; they’re not out to take over the company or overthrow any governments. They just want a bit of consideration from management, who can sometimes be too stubborn and stingy in that regard.

quote:

quote:

Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

That's on Unions, isn't it? Or, is that going to be the responsibility of the US Government?

At this point, it’s hard to say whose responsibility it will be.

quote:

quote:

The thing is, we disagree on how to end the "business as usual" cycle. I think we also disagree, to an extent, on what "business as usual" means, as far as how it's occurring.
I'm very glad, though, that we can discuss this like rational adults. Thank you for that.

Yes, same here. This has been an interesting discussion, as always.
I don’t think we really disagree on the issue of rights here. I think that we both respect the Constitution and the fundamental principles of individual human rights. You’ve made the point that a wealthy person has the right to keep his/her money, and that we don’t have the right to tell them how much they can have. I don’t really dispute the matter of rights, but I don’t think it really ends there.
You asked above about the minimum wage and why can’t an employer and employee agree to a lower wage. Let’s assume that society did that and implemented the principles of laissez-faire economics which you seem to be advocating. I believe that there would be severe consequences to the quality of life and the general socioeconomic conditions in this country which could lead to even greater political instability. It seems to me like it’s a recipe for chaos.
All of your arguments might make perfect sense when applied to an accountant’s ledger or an economist’s projections. But real life always seems to be a bit messier than that. Humans are very dynamic and complicated creatures. We should strive towards greater enlightenment for the sake of all humanity, focusing on logic, so we can all live long and prosper.
But instead, we just keep wallowing in the muck. I don’t really want to begrudge the wealthy their billions, but let’s face it, they’re touted as the best and the brightest, the movers and shakers in this world. But they seem to want to take us backward instead of forward.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm pretty sure the City/County already owns most of downtown's vacant buildings. Ergo, no property tax owed. It's not that people are sitting on the properties and refusing to sell them, either. Keeping a building/lot vacant is still a loss, as property taxes still apply. The government is getting their slice (unless it's owned by government).

quote:


So, the problem, then, is that government is turning a blind eye. That bothers me more than business whining.

quote:


The minimum wage isn't typically earned by someone supporting a family of four. That's part of the problem. Some kid working a summer job between school should get paid wages that would support a family of 4 for showing up and doing low/no skill tasks? Really?

quote:


Your grandfather was completely correct. I can't see how that's an issue, though.
It's when people start telling business they are supposed to be for supporting the poor or working class, that I have issues with.

quote:


You go buy a toaster, and you're paying for a toaster. You're not paying a company to care for the poor or the working class. You are paying for the toaster. Now, if you choose to only buy products from companies that pay their employees more, and/or provide better benefits, then, that's your money to deal with. And, it's you, the consumer, that is caring about the poor and the working class, not the business.

quote:


The question asked challenges the reasons for having a minimum wage law. I figured you'd understand that.

quote:


He was a Representative from Youngstown, Ohio. Having family in/from that area, I did get to hear about him. He was an interesting character, at the very least. I still wouldn't put him in the category of a "Mr. Smith."

quote:


I won't be one of those people who claim that Democrats are the only ones that have voters who don't have a clue. I know better than that. I find it sad when people won't pay attention and will vote based on sound bites. Personally, I need to pay more attention to local politics. Until I do, though, I will continue to choose to not participate in those elections.

quote:


No, the point is that we are talking about legal activities, not illegal ones. I'm all for prosecuting businesses that are involved in illegal activities. I'm just not one to be for making something illegal when I don't believe it should be illegal.

quote:


I don't agree with minimum wage laws. I believe they are more harmful than helpful. And, accordingly, I am not in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

quote:


When you start to question "isn't it enough," you aren't talking about illegal activity. You're talking about legal activities that result in income. Even if the majority of Americans were in favor of limiting anyone's total income to $200k, I would continue to disagree with it, and would support a Constitutional challenge to that law.

quote:


Is it that we don't have the laws, or that the laws we do have aren't being applied? If we have "regulators" that aren't watching what they're supposed to be watching, but have every tool necessary to take care of the problem, then it's not about the laws and the teeth, but about application of current laws. If we don't have the laws on the books sufficient to take care of the problem, then that's something we need.

quote:


But, whatever level of income and lifestyle you want, it's up to you to pursue. Sure, there are more stories of guys working, toiling and sacrificing for a sports career, and not making it, than those that make it. And, some have a leg up on others (the Mathews family certainly seemed to have the genetic predisposition). But, it's still your hopes and dreams to define and pursue.
If you set the bar lower, you will likely have an easier time reaching it. I worked with a guy that had a goal of making his first million by age 35. He busted his ass and made it by the time he was 33. He had his first heart attack at age 35 because of how hard he pushed himself. It's his life (or death) to make those choices, though. It's not yours. It's not mine. It's his.

quote:


Last resort? It's usually more due to a long line of mistakes. It's not usual for government to have been doing the proper things before and then get put in the situation where inflating the money supply is the last resort.

quote:


But, should I be in business if I am not able to bring my gadget to market at a price that people are willing to pay for it (and let's just assume that my profit margin is low)? If I can turn out a hand made bicycle for $5,000, and it's a very well-made bicycle, but no one is willing to spend $5k on a bicycle, should I be in business, or get a bailout to remain in business? Should I be bailed out if my costs continually exceed my sales? I don't think I should.

quote:


And, that's their choice. Krogers choice was to close that location. The thing is, it's making Krogers out to be the bad guy, when it's the crime in the community that was the problem. It wasn't that there was more crime at other locations, but they were going to close that location anyway. It was because that location had so much crime, that it wasn't profitable for them to stay.

quote:


I can't answer that. I'm not a stockholder. I still can't believe how much money some CEO's make. It amazes me. It's not just about how much they make, but how people think that position is worth that much money. I'm good if you think a CEO is worth $5M a year, and has the proof to back that up. I just don't see it. But, again, I'm not a stockholder and I'm not on the committee to determine CEO pay, so, I might not be in the loop as to why the pay is that high.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

That's on Unions, isn't it? Or, is that going to be the responsibility of the US Government?

At this point, it’s hard to say whose responsibility it will be.

Really? It might be the responsibility of the US government to determine what work conditions are outside the US?!?

quote:


In the short term, there would be some chaos, as change usually does produce that. And, there would be some time when business profits rose as they lowered wages offered. But, the presence of higher profits tends to produce competition for those profits. I do believe that the cost of living would drop, not the standard of living. I acknowledge that my arguments and things I support wouldn't immediately result in the end games I believe they would, but that there would be a period of time that would be necessary for the Market to adjust to the change. During that change, things will be messy.

quote:


Back in the day when the housing bubble was starting to pop, I was all for people holding mortgages to be responsible for those mortgages (except in cases where the lender acted illegally). That would have been messy and ugly and all that. I would most likely have lost my house in it, too. I still think Bush's and Obama's actions in response to the Great Recession were wrong, and did little but kick the can down the road. I think we just added some cards to the house of cards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Then it would be up to the local government to do something with those buildings, if they own them.

quote:

quote:

So, the problem, then, is that government is turning a blind eye. That bothers me more than business whining.

Both problems bother me equally. But it’s really business calling the shots here. Government wouldn’t turn the blind eye unless business wanted them to.

quote:

quote:

The minimum wage isn't typically earned by someone supporting a family of four. That's part of the problem. Some kid working a summer job between school should get paid wages that would support a family of 4 for showing up and doing low/no skill tasks? Really?

That’s beside the point. If someone who does no work at all in society receives money to support a family of four, then someone who actually does work (and thus, of greater value to society) should get at least that, or more.
Your point all along has been that those who have little to no skills should be paid low wages because anyone can do the job and their work isn’t worth that much. But those who won’t work offer nothing in return for the money they receive from society. Those who bust their butt on starvation wages can see this phenomenon all around them, and I think it’s a fair point that they should get greater consideration from society.
Conservatives and business people often talk about wanting to get people off welfare, but they never want to put their money where their mouth is.

quote:

quote:

Your grandfather was completely correct. I can't see how that's an issue, though.
It's when people start telling business they are supposed to be for supporting the poor or working class, that I have issues with.

No one is forcing them to care. The main issue I have is when businesses pretend to care, but really don’t. It’s false and hypocritical. It’s a lie, and that’s what I can’t abide. If they’re in business to make money, that’s cool. But if they try to pass off a false image or lie about stuff, that ain’t cool. That’s what the issue is.

quote:

quote:

You go buy a toaster, and you're paying for a toaster. You're not paying a company to care for the poor or the working class. You are paying for the toaster. Now, if you choose to only buy products from companies that pay their employees more, and/or provide better benefits, then, that's your money to deal with. And, it's you, the consumer, that is caring about the poor and the working class, not the business.

In my experience as a customer, I’ve found that it’s a far more satisfying experience when I go into a business where the employees are happy and obviously treated well by their employer.
I expect that individuals have different degrees of empathy and compassion for their fellow human beings, and as businesses are run by human beings, I would not expect them to be any different. Some care and some don’t.

quote:

quote:

The question asked challenges the reasons for having a minimum wage law. I figured you'd understand that.

Yes, I figured as much, and that’s why my answer was more along the lines of trying to conceive of a possible alternative which would address some of the issues you raised about the minimum wage being a barrier to low-skilled and teen workers from getting their foot in the door.
In all candor, I just don’t foresee any time when the minimum wage will be abolished. They might dicker over the numbers as to how much the wage should be, but the minimum wage as a concept will probably never go away in our lifetime.

quote:

quote:

He was a Representative from Youngstown, Ohio. Having family in/from that area, I did get to hear about him. He was an interesting character, at the very least. I still wouldn't put him in the category of a "Mr. Smith."

Perhaps not, although I guess I tend to be a bit cynical about the inner workings of our government.

quote:

quote:

No, the point is that we are talking about legal activities, not illegal ones. I'm all for prosecuting businesses that are involved in illegal activities. I'm just not one to be for making something illegal when I don't believe it should be illegal.

My only point was that we, as a society, get to decide what’s legal and what’s not, as long as it’s Constitutional. But even then, if enough people and states agree, the Constitution itself can be amended. I was just questioning your notion that “not much anyone can say about it.”

quote:

quote:

I don't agree with minimum wage laws. I believe they are more harmful than helpful. And, accordingly, I am not in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

I think more people are helped by the minimum wage than hurt by it. We’ve had the minimum wage since the 1930s, and our economy has gone through many ups and downs since then, so I hardly think the minimum wage itself can break the U.S. economy. Since most workers earn above minimum and it doesn’t seem to be a very large factor in the grand scheme of things, I’m not sure how much harm it’s actually causing.
I think that your concerns about youth unemployment and low-skilled workers needing a way to get their foot in the door to prove themselves are valid. Perhaps these issues can be addressed by authorizing a temporary training wage or probationary wage which would be lower than minimum wage to start. Would this be a satisfactory compromise, or do you want to do away with the minimum wage no matter what?

quote:

quote:

When you start to question "isn't it enough," you aren't talking about illegal activity. You're talking about legal activities that result in income. Even if the majority of Americans were in favor of limiting anyone's total income to $200k, I would continue to disagree with it, and would support a Constitutional challenge to that law.

Well, that wouldn’t happen, so no worries there.
Yes, we’re talking about legal activities here. I respect your position as being a very libertarian one. You’re saying that it’s their business, their property, their rights – and they can do whatever they want provided that it’s legal and Constitutional. If they want to take their ball and go home, then it’s their ball. That’s fine. I get all that. But I can still question why they would do that. Why deliberately create ill will within one’s own community? Even if one has the right to do it, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Do you see what I mean?

quote:

Or to put this more in context, your point has been that raising the minimum wage would be harmful to workers, since businesses won’t hire more workers unless they can pay a lower wage. So, the actual “harm” to which you refer is directly caused by a choice made by the business, not by the government. There has also been the implication that the business itself might be “harmed” by the minimum wage or other government mandates which might cut into their profit margin.
Sure, what they’re doing is legal, but if they’re going to claim that raising the minimum wage might harm them – or that they’re living under “tyranny” because they have to pay a small percentage in taxes, then my response to that is: “Oh yeah?” That’s where the question of “isn’t it enough” comes from.

quote:

quote:

Is it that we don't have the laws, or that the laws we do have aren't being applied? If we have "regulators" that aren't watching what they're supposed to be watching, but have every tool necessary to take care of the problem, then it's not about the laws and the teeth, but about application of current laws. If we don't have the laws on the books sufficient to take care of the problem, then that's something we need.

I don’t think they’ve used piranha yet.
In case you haven’t noticed, I believe in good, honest government. I realize our system is rotten to the core and that I have a better chance of becoming a towel boy for the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than any of us have at getting good, honest government. But it’s still a dream I have.
Seriously, I don’t think government should be something that we have to fear. They’re supposed to be working for us. We The People are supposed to be the bosses, not the other way around. When someone in government violates the public trust, it should not be taken lightly or treated with a slap on the wrist.
I think both government and business share responsibility here. The government is to blame for putting itself up for sale, and business is to blame for buying it. Actually, business may even be more to blame, since they actively work to pour money into political campaigns, lobbyists, and even manipulate public opinion through the corporate media. The politicians are actually at the mercy of business, so they’re faced with the choice of either “sell out” or get the “Mr. Smith” treatment.

quote:

quote:

But, whatever level of income and lifestyle you want, it's up to you to pursue. Sure, there are more stories of guys working, toiling and sacrificing for a sports career, and not making it, than those that make it. And, some have a leg up on others (the Mathews family certainly seemed to have the genetic predisposition). But, it's still your hopes and dreams to define and pursue.
If you set the bar lower, you will likely have an easier time reaching it. I worked with a guy that had a goal of making his first million by age 35. He busted his ass and made it by the time he was 33. He had his first heart attack at age 35 because of how hard he pushed himself. It's his life (or death) to make those choices, though. It's not yours. It's not mine. It's his.

I get what you’re saying, and I’m all for freedom of choice. My main point is that just because someone may be down on their luck or apparently unskilled, it doesn’t automatically follow that they chose that. Or even if they did choose it, they may not have been in their right mind while doing so. There are a number of circumstances one might face, along with various paths one might take in life.
That’s why I’m skeptical of some of the notions bandied about regarding the lesser skilled, poor, or disadvantaged. I’m not saying that people are required to be caring or compassionate. If people want to take on a “fuck-the-poor” attitude, then so be it. But all I would ask is that people be honest about things and not cling to myths and sacred cows which stand in the way of progress and could actually hurt this country in the long run.

quote:

quote:

Last resort? It's usually more due to a long line of mistakes. It's not usual for government to have been doing the proper things before and then get put in the situation where inflating the money supply is the last resort.

Well, yeah. Of course, it’s due to a long line of mistakes. That was my point. So, I guess the best thing now is for our government to stop making mistakes. Wouldn’t you agree?

quote:

quote:

But, should I be in business if I am not able to bring my gadget to market at a price that people are willing to pay for it (and let's just assume that my profit margin is low)? If I can turn out a hand made bicycle for $5,000, and it's a very well-made bicycle, but no one is willing to spend $5k on a bicycle, should I be in business, or get a bailout to remain in business? Should I be bailed out if my costs continually exceed my sales? I don't think I should.

No, probably not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for bailouts. I think they’re a bad idea, too. I was only saying that I kind-of, sort-of get the reasoning behind them. I don’t think they’re done lightly or on governmental whimsy.

quote:

quote:

And, that's their choice. Krogers choice was to close that location. The thing is, it's making Krogers out to be the bad guy, when it's the crime in the community that was the problem. It wasn't that there was more crime at other locations, but they were going to close that location anyway. It was because that location had so much crime, that it wasn't profitable for them to stay.

Was there any proposal from local or state government to offer them subsidies that would offset their losses to encourage them to stay? That’s what they did in one town here in AZ.

quote:

quote:

I can't answer that. I'm not a stockholder. I still can't believe how much money some CEO's make. It amazes me. It's not just about how much they make, but how people think that position is worth that much money. I'm good if you think a CEO is worth $5M a year, and has the proof to back that up. I just don't see it. But, again, I'm not a stockholder and I'm not on the committee to determine CEO pay, so, I might not be in the loop as to why the pay is that high.

That’s what makes it all the more curious. I think of how much these CEO’s make, and then I think of how much the minimum wage is – and how some people think it should be lower, not to mention how many billions there are around the world making a mere fraction of what the minimum wage is here in the U.S.
I just have to wonder: Is there some logic to all of this? Is there some science at work with which I’m unaware? Can an accountant or economist show me some mathematical formula that would make sense of all this?
And if not, then what are we talking about? Just what we “feel” something or somebody is worth? Are all the economists’ projections, charts, and graphs all just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to hide the truth from the people?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Well, I suppose there remains a need to be vigilant so that we don’t revert back to the way things used to be. Also, if we’re talking about a global economy, then that works both ways, for both management and labor. There’s a whole big world out there where employee abuse, exploitation, dreadful working conditions, child labor, etc., are still rampant, so there’s quite a bit of work left to do.

That's on Unions, isn't it? Or, is that going to be the responsibility of the US Government?

At this point, it’s hard to say whose responsibility it will be.

Really? It might be the responsibility of the US government to determine what work conditions are outside the US?!?

No, I didn’t say that. I’m an advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy, so I would not say that the US government has a responsibility to determine work conditions outside the US. However, we do have the right as a sovereign nation to make the choice as to which nations we will trade and do business with.
Unions, on the other hand, may not have any such restrictions, as they can be international organizations.
I would also suggest that workers’ rights and issues regarding wages and working conditions could be an international, UN-level concern, just as human rights are an international concern. It wouldn’t be the responsibility of the U.S. government alone, but as a member of the United Nations, it may be a shared global responsibility.

quote:

In the short term, there would be some chaos, as change usually does produce that. And, there would be some time when business profits rose as they lowered wages offered. But, the presence of higher profits tends to produce competition for those profits. I do believe that the cost of living would drop, not the standard of living. I acknowledge that my arguments and things I support wouldn't immediately result in the end games I believe they would, but that there would be a period of time that would be necessary for the Market to adjust to the change. During that change, things will be messy.

It could get very messy. That’s the risk here. Chaos can quickly escalate beyond the point of no return.
I wasn’t just being facetious when I referred to the mathematical formula up above. Thing is, economics is a social science, and as such, it’s connected to every facet of society. I think the main problem I have with your view is that you seem to break down this massively complicated situation into neat little pictures, and I don’t believe it’s that simple.

quote:

quote:

Back in the day when the housing bubble was starting to pop, I was all for people holding mortgages to be responsible for those mortgages (except in cases where the lender acted illegally). That would have been messy and ugly and all that. I would most likely have lost my house in it, too. I still think Bush's and Obama's actions in response to the Great Recession were wrong, and did little but kick the can down the road. I think we just added some cards to the house of cards.

That’s what we’ve been doing since Reagan. This country faced some tough choices in the 1960s and 70s, and if we had made the right choices (even if it meant taking the “difficult road”), we might have been in much better shape today because of it. Instead, we didn’t want to take the difficult road. We wanted to take the easy road, party hardy, live high on the hog – and we can worry about paying the bill later.
Reagan just told the people what they wanted to hear, and the voters lapped it up like milk served to kittens. It’s really been the same old refrain for decades now, yet look where it’s brought us.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Then it would be up to the local government to do something with those buildings, if they own them.

Except the local government isn't in the business of being in business.

quote:


Government has them because no one else wants them.

quote:


Business is always going to look for the best deal for itself. That's business.

quote:


Government, otoh, is supposed to uphold the laws. If a law isn't worth upholding, it should be repealed. Unless you are in favor of government ignoring the laws on the books and letting business do whatever it wants, you aren't being represented by the people elected to represent you.

quote:


You are arguing that the minimum wage isn't high enough for people to choose to work instead of be on welfare. I think we might need to visit how much people are getting on welfare, in that case.

quote:


The supply of labor that is qualified to do the jobs that require the least amount of skill is great, so the wages offered will tend to not be very high. That will also be tempered by the number of people willing to do the job for the wages offered.

If no qualified person was willing to work for less than $10/hr. and government turned a blind eye to the whining of business (but not to hiring of illegal immigrants), business would have no choices other than pay someone $10/hr. or leave the spot vacant. It's not that the job is worthless, but that the number of willing qualified applicants is high. That's why there are jobs that pay minimum wage, and jobs that could pay less if there wasn't a minimum wage. When the number of willing and qualified applicants isn't high, you get fry-guys and burger-flippers being offered $10/hr.

Where are all the liberals starting companies that pay their employees whatever they define a "living wage?" I know there are some out there, but, if it's such an important thing for them, where are they? Are you going to call them out for not putting their money where their mouths are, too?

quote:


I'm really shocked that you get this worked up over this.

quote:


How is it that 5% or so of hourly wage workers gets paid at or below the minimum wage? Shouldn't that number be higher? Why isn't it?

quote:

So, you were just arguing semantics, then?

quote:


I'm not for the minimum wage. The fact that there aren't a lot of people working at or below the minimum wage speaks to it not being all that relevant. Libs continue to increase the number so as to gain more people who it will impact, in an attempt to sway the vote. That's little more than buying votes, imo.

quote:


I fully understand that just because something is legal and you can do it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I don't know that they are deliberately creating ill will within their community. One could question why some people rile up others to create ill will for a third party, too.

quote:


But, it's not your money. It's not your business. It's not up to you to define what is "enough" for someone else; just for you.

quote:


At the mercy of business?!? Only because they are willing to be sold.

quote:


I, personally, believe that's a violation of the public trust right there. Yes, they are supposed to be working for us. There aren't enough voters paying attention, so they aren't doing justice to We the People.

quote:


It's not about people "down on their luck." Those people, generally, have skills that they could be compensated for. For some, no one knows if you have any skills until you have experience and have demonstrated them. You just can't jump up the ladder (usually). You have to start at the bottom and work your way up.

quote:


Some will argue that economists are all about mumbo-jumbo, except, of course, the ones they agree with.

quote:


It's about what the job is worth, primarily. That can be altered according to the qualifications of the applicant, too.

quote:

Where is the point of no return if we continue to do what we're doing, simply placating the masses by borrowing money?

quote:


Did you not watch what was happening in Greece, Spain or the UK? Riots over decreasing government spending, because the people had come to rely heavily on that spending. That's something we're going to eventually risk if we keep increasing welfare spending and the reach of entitlements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Then it would be up to the local government to do something with those buildings, if they own them.

Except the local government isn't in the business of being in business.

Just because they won’t do it doesn’t mean they can’t do it.

quote:

Government has them because no one else wants them.

Nobody?

quote:

quote:

Business is always going to look for the best deal for itself. That's business.

Businesses are also comprised of citizens, and citizens have obligations, too. Such as the obligation to follow the law. And since we live in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then business does not and should not get a pass here.

quote:

quote:

Government, otoh, is supposed to uphold the laws. If a law isn't worth upholding, it should be repealed. Unless you are in favor of government ignoring the laws on the books and letting business do whatever it wants, you aren't being represented by the people elected to represent you.

That’s why I advocate change in how we do things in this country.

quote:

quote:

You are arguing that the minimum wage isn't high enough for people to choose to work instead of be on welfare. I think we might need to visit how much people are getting on welfare, in that case.

Or…another way to do it would be visit the cost of living and determine why such large amounts of money are needed to support a family. If you don’t want to adjust wages for the cost of living, then the cost of living has to be made lower.
Otherwise, what are you proposing? That we turn out like Pakistan, where people have to choose between selling a kidney or selling one of their kids to be able to pay their rent? Is that what you really want?

quote:

quote:

The supply of labor that is qualified to do the jobs that require the least amount of skill is great, so the wages offered will tend to not be very high. That will also be tempered by the number of people willing to do the job for the wages offered.
If no qualified person was willing to work for less than $10/hr. and government turned a blind eye to the whining of business (but not to hiring of illegal immigrants), business would have no choices other than pay someone $10/hr. or leave the spot vacant. It's not that the job is worthless, but that the number of willing qualified applicants is high. That's why there are jobs that pay minimum wage, and jobs that could pay less if there wasn't a minimum wage. When the number of willing and qualified applicants isn't high, you get fry-guys and burger-flippers being offered $10/hr.
Where are all the liberals starting companies that pay their employees whatever they define a "living wage?" I know there are some out there, but, if it's such an important thing for them, where are they? Are you going to call them out for not putting their money where their mouths are, too?

Sure, why wouldn’t I? However, if I was to call out liberals, it might be over different issues, not necessarily this one. (My view is that liberals tend to waste a lot of political capital on social issues, when there should be a full-court press on economic issues alone, in my opinion.)
However, on this issue, their mouths also say “pay a living wage,” and they’ve often proposed changes to the law to make that happen. As long as they agree to follow the same laws as everyone else, it doesn’t seem like it should be that much of a problem.

quote:

quote:

I'm really shocked that you get this worked up over this.

Just like businesses get worked over proposals to raise the minimum wage or a few extra pennies in taxes?
Some 150 years ago, a bunch of business owners got all worked up and even started a Civil War because they thought the government was going to tell them they couldn’t own slaves. You don’t think that their malice and lies to the American people are not worth getting worked up over?

quote:

quote:

How is it that 5% or so of hourly wage workers gets paid at or below the minimum wage? Shouldn't that number be higher? Why isn't it?

Because people can’t afford to live on it. Quite frankly, wages need to be higher all across the board, not just minimum wage. Either that, or prices need to be lower.
Or…if neither of those options are acceptable to you, then the other option would be rethink the basis and philosophy of our country and civilization.

quote:

quote:

So, you were just arguing semantics, then?

To some extent, we’re both arguing semantics. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

quote:

quote:

I'm not for the minimum wage. The fact that there aren't a lot of people working at or below the minimum wage speaks to it not being all that relevant. Libs continue to increase the number so as to gain more people who it will impact, in an attempt to sway the vote. That's little more than buying votes, imo.

That’s politics for ya.
But there might be room for compromise on this issue, and yet, I don’t see any willingness to budge on this issue.
On the one side, you have the poor and working classes saying that they don’t want to be exploited or starve. It’s not that they’re not willing to compromise, it’s just that there’s no other place for them to go. (Sure, as you say, individuals at that level might be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, work hard, sacrifice, and then they’ll become millionaires by the time they’re 33. But as a society, we still have the same problem, since some people will still be in that class. So, as a class, they have nowhere to go and no real room to compromise. They’ve been pushed to the brink.)
On the other side, you have the wealthy claiming that bad things will happen if they have to pay a living wage. Of course, they don’t say exactly what those bad things will be, and you say that we don’t have the right to ask them, since it’s their business and not mine. No one has anything to say about it and that’s the end of it, as you say.
So, on the one side, you have people who could compromise but refuse anyway, while on the other side, you have people who can’t compromise even if they wanted to. Which side is wrong?
When both sides are at an impasse and there’s no chance for compromise, how do you think it will end up?

quote:

quote:

I fully understand that just because something is legal and you can do it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I don't know that they are deliberately creating ill will within their community. One could question why some people rile up others to create ill will for a third party, too.

Because businesses make it very easy for certain ambitious politicians to rile people up.
Once upon a time, the smart businesses were the ones who negotiated with unions, tacitly supported the labor movement, the New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights, and other reforms in the system to give people a leg up and promote political stability in this country and make it a most desirable place to live.
That’s how politics can work, through compromise, negotiation, and mutual consideration. The wealthy business classes might see a certain logic that by giving up some of their wealth, they have a more likely chance of keeping most of their wealth.
But if they continually insist on widening the gap between the rich and poor, shrinking the middle class, and pushing this country to the brink, then whose fault would it be for riling people up? You say that they can do it just because they can, and sure, it’s legal; it’s their right. But is it the smart choice for America to make? I don’t think so.

quote:

quote:

But, it's not your money. It's not your business. It's not up to you to define what is "enough" for someone else; just for you.

But it’s our country. We as citizens get to decide. Either we can sit down and try to compromise and negotiate for the sake of peace and stability. Or we can stubbornly stick to our guns and degenerate into insurrection and civil war. It’s in no one’s hands but our own. If America chooses peace or war, it will be our choice to make, not the Founding Fathers or some dead ideologues from the last century.

quote:

quote:

At the mercy of business?!? Only because they are willing to be sold.

Or, they’re being coerced into being sold. If they don’t sell, then they’re out of office and replaced by someone who will play ball.

quote:

quote:

I, personally, believe that's a violation of the public trust right there. Yes, they are supposed to be working for us. There aren't enough voters paying attention, so they aren't doing justice to We the People.

And this also means paying attention to which People among us are actively trying to muck up the works. Of course, that would fall on the voters again.
But the business community should also bear some responsibility here, since they’re citizens, too. They don’t get a free pass just because they’re in business.

quote:

quote:

It's not about people "down on their luck." Those people, generally, have skills that they could be compensated for. For some, no one knows if you have any skills until you have experience and have demonstrated them. You just can't jump up the ladder (usually). You have to start at the bottom and work your way up.

Be that as it may, one still has to be able to eat and live in the meantime. Even if some individuals manage to work their way up that ladder, there will always be those at the bottom.

quote:

quote:

It's about what the job is worth, primarily. That can be altered according to the qualifications of the applicant, too.

It’s not “what the job is worth.” It’s what somebody thinks the job is worth. That may not seem like a big difference, but it is.

quote:

quote:

Where is the point of no return if we continue to do what we're doing, simply placating the masses by borrowing money?

I didn’t say anything about wanting to placate the masses by borrowing money. In fact, borrowing money doesn’t placate the masses at all; it’s designed to placate the business community. They’re the ones who end up getting most of that money anyway.

quote:

quote:

Did you not watch what was happening in Greece, Spain or the UK? Riots over decreasing government spending, because the people had come to rely heavily on that spending. That's something we're going to eventually risk if we keep increasing welfare spending and the reach of entitlements.

They’re rioting because they know the government could impose price controls and reduce the amount of money people need to live, yet they won’t do it. In any case, as long as the rich get to remain rich, the government has no business imposing “austerity” on the people. If business made those governments go broke, then they should have to be the ones pay for it, not the masses. You keep saying over and over that it’s business’ choice. That being the case, they made their choice, and now they have to live with the consequences.
So, yeah, they’re rioting, and I would expect even more of the same in the years to come. That’s the consequence of deliberately causing ill will in one’s own community, even if it’s “legal” and they have the right to make the choice to do it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)