If the $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage is so Good Why are Unions Getting Exemptions From it?

a reply to: onequestion

'Your own calculations'? Where have I given calculations?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
By advocating for a minimum wage. Is this not what the entire thread is about?

The market dynamics Manhattan (New York) are not the same as in Manhattan (Kansas).

What you are presenting here is an argument that states (or more likely counties) should be setting their own minimum wage, not that there shouldn't be one. Most states already do set their own minimum wage for that matter and even some cities do.

As I stated earlier, middle class real earnings began to drop when we came off the gold standard and they will not go up in relation to GDP until the dollar is relinked to gold or a basket of commodities.

The dollar will never be relinked to gold or commodities. Even if it were, a dollar linked to the price of gold is just as much a fiat currency as a dollar linked to nothing. Are you aware of what happened when the government confiscated all the gold? What happened was that the government set the price of gold at $20.67 per ounce and it remained there for 40 years. The 50's and 60's where minimum wage was at it's peak involved just as dishonest a currency as we have today.

I can play two or more companies against each other right now and I am currently employed. I get calls regularly from recruiters looking for me to transition. Why do you think I have such a lucrative bonus, commission and yearly increase structure?

That's called playing the market, it doesn't add value only personal gain.

There are Unions, then there are SCREWNIONS.

Our Union starts off with a first year apprentice earning $15 an hour, with a 5% of a journeymans pay rate increase every six months.

After four years of schooling you become a journeyman.

If you are in a Screwnion, your pay base is a hell of a lot lower, often with little to no wage increase.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not to mention, no two people do the same job at the same competency level. A pretty important aspect to wage differences.

a reply to: Aazadan

What 'extends beyond this administration? Immigration? Inflation? What do you refer to?

As far as 'competent big gov't', NAME ONE. Ever...

Minimum wage issues, come up when regular/usual democrat policies fall out of disfavor in the polls. The republicans general cave in to those demands to "take that issue away from the next election". Both are pathetic.

Problems go back to day two of the nation. The current issues are the responsibility of the current administration and in almost every area they've touched, it's worse for the majority than before.

Personally, I do not require 'macro' inflation spin, thank you very much. Micro is what 'we the people' suffer from and relate to. Mitigating the micro with the macro is nothing but spin. Creating jobs increases demand and drives wages up. A gov't that cries for increasing the minimum wage is nothing more than a confession that they have NOT improved the economy, have not created an environment where the private sector can expand/recover.

It is a guilty plea by those politicians that play that gambit.

Your incremental increases would only add fuel to increase the minimums even further. The "two-bedroom apt". argument is proof of that.

There should be no federal minimum wage whatsoever. it violates the 10 th and should be left to each state to decide. simple.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
What 'extends beyond this administration? Immigration? Inflation? What do you refer to?

All of the above, Obama has essentially been terms 3 and 4 of Bush on policy. In this case however I was referring to minimum wage, earlier I referred to it having been a result of decisions made in every presidency since Reagan but I've been thinking this over all night and really it's been a result of everyone since Nixon.

As far as 'competent big gov't', NAME ONE. Ever...

I'll name 5. China, Norway, Russia, Sweeden, Germany. The reason large government always fails in the US is because we elect people who say government is incompetent, and that if you elect them to office they're going to prove it by dismantling the government so that it's even less effective. The danger in big government isn't that the people are incompetent, most high level bureaucrats are actually pulled from successful private sector companies. It's that in a big government every position and office becomes political in nature. For example treatment from a doctor is no longer about a doctor/patient relationship and an individualized treatment plan but rather about medical practices that fulfill a particular persons viewpoint such as needing to cut back on cosmetic surgeries to make time for the truly needy or the internet needs to be regulated to protect the children from online predators.

Minimum wage issues, come up when regular/usual democrat policies fall out of disfavor in the polls. The republicans general cave in to those demands to "take that issue away from the next election". Both are pathetic.

No, they come up because it's in our human nature to ask for more. Minimum wage positions by definition don't give raises, if they did they would no longer be positions at or near the minimum wage. Just as an employee making more than the minimum expects a raise every couple years, so do minimum wage employees if for no other reason than to maintain purchasing power parity. It just so happens that the financial reality agrees that minimum wage is declining year after year in purchasing power. This is true of most income levels, due to the high spread of wealth inequality we currently have the 1st-89th income percentiles are seeing their purchasing power decline, those from 90th-95th have seen their purchasing power remain mostly level, while those in the 96th-99th have seen their purchasing power increase.

Lets say minimum wage is paying what it should be paying, even that position necessitates an annual increase to the minimum wage that is higher than it's currently getting. The only argument that says minimum wage shouldn't go up is one that says minimum wage is too high. So I ask, how low should minimum wage be? The average rent for a low end studio apartment in the country right now is $750/month. That represents 53% of the monthly income of someone at minimum wage. The rule of thumb I've seen every financial adviser or landlord ever give is that mortgage/rent should be no more than 30% of income. If minimum wage is going to go down which is the result of not changing the wage, what percentage of a low wage workers income should a roof over their head cost them?

Personally, I do not require 'macro' inflation spin, thank you very much. Micro is what 'we the people' suffer from and relate to. Mitigating the micro with the macro is nothing but spin. Creating jobs increases demand and drives wages up. A gov't that cries for increasing the minimum wage is nothing more than a confession that they have NOT improved the economy, have not created an environment where the private sector can expand/recover.

Microeconomics involves the behavior of individuals, what would fall under micro economics is concepts such as purchasing a bag of rice vs bread and a jar of peanut butter or the willingness of a person to buy an Ipad. This would also involve my above example of a low wage worker and the cost of rent if you're looking at a small subset of people rather than a group.

Macroeconomics involves regional and national economies and is what you look at when referring to things like tax revenue, federal budgets, unemployment rates, inflation, minimum wages, and wage gaps.

Your incremental increases would only add fuel to increase the minimums even further. The "two-bedroom apt". argument is proof of that.

I'm not using the 2 bedroom apartment argument. I'm using a studio in a slum.

There should be no federal minimum wage whatsoever. it violates the 10 th and should be left to each state to decide. simple.

This isn't an answer. Lets say you abolish the federal minimum wage, now your state has to decide on a minimum wage. You still have to decide if you're either for one or against one, and if so how much. On top of that, deciding minimum wage at the state level falls victim to the same argument as to why you shouldn't decide it at the federal level. Certain areas of states are less expensive than others such as southern Ohio (where I am) is MUCH cheaper than somewhere in central Ohio like Columbus. It doesn't make sense for my area to be subject to the same wage as a city with a higher cost of living which then means you need to decide the wage on a county level.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not to mention, no two people do the same job at the same competency level. A pretty important aspect to wage differences.

This would imply we live in a meritocracy, which we don't. The more competent person does not make more money, it's actually quite the opposite in the corporate world. Upper level management is the highest paid because they make decisions, not because they're performing the research, engineering the machinery, or inventing the technology to implement their businesses plan. All they're providing is direction. Engineers are far more competent than MBA's yet it's the MBA's who make more money. It's even quite routine for a person to be hired, quite simply because they know more about a subject than their boss knows. If their boss was deserving of that higher paycheck in a meritocracy, they would be more competent on the subject.

Wages are nothing more than a game, they aren't an absolute indicator of ability or necessity. If this were true a master plumber would be the highest paid person in society because they keep the water flowing, the toilets flushing, and the sewers working.

originally posted by: Aazadan

What you are presenting here is an argument that states (or more likely counties) should be setting their own minimum wage, not that there shouldn't be one. Most states already do set their own minimum wage for that matter and even some cities do.

I do not think there should be any minimum wage but if there is one it should be set by metropolitan statistical areas.

The dollar will never be relinked to gold or commodities. Even if it were, a dollar linked to the price of gold is just as much a fiat currency as a dollar linked to nothing. Are you aware of what happened when the government confiscated all the gold? What happened was that the government set the price of gold at $20.67 per ounce and it remained there for 40 years. The 50's and 60's where minimum wage was at it's peak involved just as dishonest a currency as we have today.

Actually the price was changed to $35. If you look at inflation rates they were fairly gradual until Nixon took us off the standard completely. That is when real earnings began to erode.

The preferable situation for me is a convertible dollar but I will settle for gradual steps.

That's called playing the market, it doesn't add value only personal gain.

If my 'playing the market' did not result in the company I worked for gaining value from me then I would not longer be gainfully employed.

originally posted by: [post=19410754]nwtrucker[/post
Not to mention, no two people do the same job at the same competency level. A pretty important aspect to wage differences.

A very good point which I failed to mention.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
What 'extends beyond this administration? Immigration? Inflation? What do you refer to?

All of the above, Obama has essentially been terms 3 and 4 of Bush on policy. In this case however I was referring to minimum wage, earlier I referred to it having been a result of decisions made in every presidency since Reagan but I've been thinking this over all night and really it's been a result of everyone since Nixon.

As far as 'competent big gov't', NAME ONE. Ever...

I'll name 5. China, Norway, Russia, Sweeden, Germany. The reason large government always fails in the US is because we elect people who say government is incompetent, and that if you elect them to office they're going to prove it by dismantling the government so that it's even less effective. The danger in big government isn't that the people are incompetent, most high level bureaucrats are actually pulled from successful private sector companies. It's that in a big government every position and office becomes political in nature. For example treatment from a doctor is no longer about a doctor/patient relationship and an individualized treatment plan but rather about medical practices that fulfill a particular persons viewpoint such as needing to cut back on cosmetic surgeries to make time for the truly needy or the internet needs to be regulated to protect the children from online predators.

Minimum wage issues, come up when regular/usual democrat policies fall out of disfavor in the polls. The republicans general cave in to those demands to "take that issue away from the next election". Both are pathetic.

No, they come up because it's in our human nature to ask for more. Minimum wage positions by definition don't give raises, if they did they would no longer be positions at or near the minimum wage. Just as an employee making more than the minimum expects a raise every couple years, so do minimum wage employees if for no other reason than to maintain purchasing power parity. It just so happens that the financial reality agrees that minimum wage is declining year after year in purchasing power. This is true of most income levels, due to the high spread of wealth inequality we currently have the 1st-89th income percentiles are seeing their purchasing power decline, those from 90th-95th have seen their purchasing power remain mostly level, while those in the 96th-99th have seen their purchasing power increase.

Lets say minimum wage is paying what it should be paying, even that position necessitates an annual increase to the minimum wage that is higher than it's currently getting. The only argument that says minimum wage shouldn't go up is one that says minimum wage is too high. So I ask, how low should minimum wage be? The average rent for a low end studio apartment in the country right now is $750/month. That represents 53% of the monthly income of someone at minimum wage. The rule of thumb I've seen every financial adviser or landlord ever give is that mortgage/rent should be no more than 30% of income. If minimum wage is going to go down which is the result of not changing the wage, what percentage of a low wage workers income should a roof over their head cost them?

Personally, I do not require 'macro' inflation spin, thank you very much. Micro is what 'we the people' suffer from and relate to. Mitigating the micro with the macro is nothing but spin. Creating jobs increases demand and drives wages up. A gov't that cries for increasing the minimum wage is nothing more than a confession that they have NOT improved the economy, have not created an environment where the private sector can expand/recover.

Microeconomics involves the behavior of individuals, what would fall under micro economics is concepts such as purchasing a bag of rice vs bread and a jar of peanut butter or the willingness of a person to buy an Ipad. This would also involve my above example of a low wage worker and the cost of rent if you're looking at a small subset of people rather than a group.

Macroeconomics involves regional and national economies and is what you look at when referring to things like tax revenue, federal budgets, unemployment rates, inflation, minimum wages, and wage gaps.

Your incremental increases would only add fuel to increase the minimums even further. The "two-bedroom apt". argument is proof of that.

I'm not using the 2 bedroom apartment argument. I'm using a studio in a slum.

There should be no federal minimum wage whatsoever. it violates the 10 th and should be left to each state to decide. simple.

This isn't an answer. Lets say you abolish the federal minimum wage, now your state has to decide on a minimum wage. You still have to decide if you're either for one or against one, and if so how much. On top of that, deciding minimum wage at the state level falls victim to the same argument as to why you shouldn't decide it at the federal level. Certain areas of states are less expensive than others such as southern Ohio (where I am) is MUCH cheaper than somewhere in central Ohio like Columbus. It doesn't make sense for my area to be subject to the same wage as a city with a higher cost of living which then means you need to decide the wage on a county level.

Lord, your post makes me wonder just where did you get this view/s?

First, I will say this again seeing you ignored it. The current issues are the responsibility of the current administration. Period. Pointing out similar-yet obviously lesser, earlier examples, solves nothing and san only be construed as a justification/excuse for the current administration.

Next, citing Russia and China as effective 'big gov'ts' speaks hugely. I won't even respond to those two choices as it is an insult to rational thinking individuals. Both are repressive, kill/incarcerate dissidents, and make the U.S. look benign in comparison.

As far as Norway, Sweden and Germany are concerned, they are now the equivalent to a U.S. state in the bigger and even more messed up European Union. I can cite individual states that are doing fine within the U.S. as well. Previous to the EU, Norway and Sweden were, in fact, small regional and ethnically homogenous nations. Far easier to reach a consensus on lifestyle and Social services. Doable on a regional/limited basis. Germany? Even they are moving to privatized option when it come to health care and are in no better shape than the U.S. that I can see. The only exception that I can see is the fact that ethnically, the German's are a highly disciplined people. They, frankly, do what their told on a collective basis.

This re-enforces my state by state opinion/view. Let each state decide for themselves when it comes to minimum wages. health care, marriage issues on and on. It was how the constitution was envisioned and set up. Individual rights allow for variables in individual views, enforcement from an ever increasing big gov't represses those varying views.

Continued..

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
What 'extends beyond this administration? Immigration? Inflation? What do you refer to?

All of the above, Obama has essentially been terms 3 and 4 of Bush on policy. In this case however I was referring to minimum wage, earlier I referred to it having been a result of decisions made in every presidency since Reagan but I've been thinking this over all night and really it's been a result of everyone since Nixon.

As far as 'competent big gov't', NAME ONE. Ever...
[/quot


I'll name 5. China, Norway, Russia, Sweeden, Germany. The reason large government always fails in the US is because we elect people who say government is incompetent, and that if you elect them to office they're going to prove it by dismantling the government so that it's even less effective. The danger in big government isn't that the people are incompetent, most high level bureaucrats are actually pulled from successful private sector companies. It's that in a big government every position and office becomes political in nature. For example treatment from a doctor is no longer about a doctor/patient relationship and an individualized treatment plan but rather about medical practices that fulfill a particular persons viewpoint such as needing to cut back on cosmetic surgeries to make time for the truly needy or the internet needs to be regulated to protect the children from online predators.

Minimum wage issues, come up when regular/usual democrat policies fall out of disfavor in the polls. The republicans general cave in to those demands to "take that issue away from the next election". Both are pathetic.

No, they come up because it's in our human nature to ask for more. Minimum wage positions by definition don't give raises, if they did they would no longer be positions at or near the minimum wage. Just as an employee making more than the minimum expects a raise every couple years, so do minimum wage employees if for no other reason than to maintain purchasing power parity. It just so happens that the financial reality agrees that minimum wage is declining year after year in purchasing power. This is true of most income levels, due to the high spread of wealth inequality we currently have the 1st-89th income percentiles are seeing their purchasing power decline, those from 90th-95th have seen their purchasing power remain mostly level, while those in the 96th-99th have seen their purchasing power increase.

Lets say minimum wage is paying what it should be paying, even that position necessitates an annual increase to the minimum wage that is higher than it's currently getting. The only argument that says minimum wage shouldn't go up is one that says minimum wage is too high. So I ask, how low should minimum wage be? The average rent for a low end studio apartment in the country right now is $750/month. That represents 53% of the monthly income of someone at minimum wage. The rule of thumb I've seen every financial adviser or landlord ever give is that mortgage/rent should be no more than 30% of income. If minimum wage is going to go down which is the result of not changing the wage, what percentage of a low wage workers income should a roof over their head cost them?

Personally, I do not require 'macro' inflation spin, thank you very much. Micro is what 'we the people' suffer from and relate to. Mitigating the micro with the macro is nothing but spin. Creating jobs increases demand and drives wages up. A gov't that cries for increasing the minimum wage is nothing more than a confession that they have NOT improved the economy, have not created an environment where the private sector can expand/recover.

Microeconomics involves the behavior of individuals, what would fall under micro economics is concepts such as purchasing a bag of rice vs bread and a jar of peanut butter or the willingness of a person to buy an Ipad. This would also involve my above example of a low wage worker and the cost of rent if you're looking at a small subset of people rather than a group.

Macroeconomics involves regional and national economies and is what you look at when referring to things like tax revenue, federal budgets, unemployment rates, inflation, minimum wages, and wage gaps.

Your incremental increases would only add fuel to increase the minimums even further. The "two-bedroom apt". argument is proof of that.

I'm not using the 2 bedroom apartment argument. I'm using a studio in a slum.

There should be no federal minimum wage whatsoever. it violates the 10 th and should be left to each state to decide. simple.

This isn't an answer. Lets say you abolish the federal minimum wage, now your state has to decide on a minimum wage. You still have to decide if you're either for one or against one, and if so how much. On top of that, deciding minimum wage at the state level falls victim to the same argument as to why you shouldn't decide it at the federal level. Certain areas of states are less expensive than others such as southern Ohio (where I am) is MUCH cheaper than somewhere in central Ohio like Columbus. It doesn't make sense for my area to be subject to the same wage as a city with a higher cost of living which then means you need to decide the wage on a county level.

Then, again, let the state decide whether to have regional to have regional minimum wages...or not. If a state feels that city rate sgould be higher than rural. that falls within their perview. Not the federal gov't with a national Minimum wage which makes that very point even worse by imposing the same rate on each state when even those stats have varying expense levels. You contradict yourself.

If your in a studio in a slum, change your employment. Don't ask me and businesses that already have a hard time surviving to subsidize your lack of creativity or efforts for upward mobility.

It is obvious to me that we are adversaries when it comes to gov't size and power versus individual liberties.

The gov't we have now actually represents the split in views of the general population. The grid-lock in the Federal gov't reflects the same grid-lock at the grass roots level.

As Obama was quoted as saying a couple of days ago, "I'm not acting illegally, I'm expanding my authority."

THAT is the result of big government. Big government only response to big groups. The individual becomes nothing. Your apparent support of the second amendment will eventually lose out to that big government and you know it.

a reply to: JIMC5499
Increase in min wage won't work unless you also somehow force investors, CEO'S, Owners to take less of a profit.

They will just pass the addional labor cost on to consumers and tax payers which in most cases are the workers getting the wage increase.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
First, I will say this again seeing you ignored it. The current issues are the responsibility of the current administration. Period. Pointing out similar-yet obviously lesser, earlier examples, solves nothing and san only be construed as a justification/excuse for the current administration.

It's not an excuse for the current administration, it's saying the problem didn't start with them. If you don't know why a problem began you can't fix it and if you don't look past Jan 20th 2009 you're not going to see the problem of why.

Next, citing Russia and China as effective 'big gov'ts' speaks hugely. I won't even respond to those two choices as it is an insult to rational thinking individuals. Both are repressive, kill/incarcerate dissidents, and make the U.S. look benign in comparison.

I didn't say China and Russia were nice places, and that's not what you asked for. I said their governments were effective. You can have repressive regimes that are both effective and ineffective, that's the difference between North Korea for example. You can also have happy freedom loving governments that are effective vs ineffective, that's the difference between the US and Norway. Additionally you can have small freedom loving governments that are effective vs ineffective that's the difference between Singapore and Somalia.

This re-enforces my state by state opinion/view. Let each state decide for themselves when it comes to minimum wages. health care, marriage issues on and on. It was how the constitution was envisioned and set up. Individual rights allow for variables in individual views, enforcement from an ever increasing big gov't represses those varying views.

Healthcare as a state issue is fine, marriage not so much because it gets into civil rights which are already a federal issue under the constitution. Minimum wage again is fine if it's not decided at a federal level, but as I've said so many times states rights is not a position on an issue, it's only limiting who can vote on the issue and where it applies. If your state is deciding minimum wage you still have to decide on how much it should be if it's there at all.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If your in a studio in a slum, change your employment. Don't ask me and businesses that already have a hard time surviving to subsidize your lack of creativity or efforts for upward mobility.

That only works on an individual level. Any given person can change their circumstances but there will always be a bottom 1% of income earners, a bottom 10%, and so on, just as there will always be a top 1%. Bathrooms still need mopped, toilets cleaned, cashiers and shelf stockers in stores. Those people need to be able to earn a living.

It is obvious to me that we are adversaries when it comes to gov't size and power versus individual liberties.

Maybe, maybe not. I just don't see size of government as an issue.

The gov't we have now actually represents the split in views of the general population. The grid-lock in the Federal gov't reflects the same grid-lock at the grass roots level.

There isn't that much grid lock at the grass roots level, people for the most part agree on the issues, they aren't ideologues. What people are is partisan, they only want to listen to a solution if their side proposes it. Due to the two party system, most issues can't be solved because no one can agree without making their side look weak.

THAT is the result of big government. Big government only response to big groups. The individual becomes nothing. Your apparent support of the second amendment will eventually lose out to that big government and you know it.

Small government risks having the ability to enforce the constitution because the courts are too weak and there's not enough people internally to oppose certain actions. Large government risks the executive or legislative pressuring the judicial.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
First, I will say this again seeing you ignored it. The current issues are the responsibility of the current administration. Period. Pointing out similar-yet obviously lesser, earlier examples, solves nothing and san only be construed as a justification/excuse for the current administration.

It's not an excuse for the current administration, it's saying the problem didn't start with them. If you don't know why a problem began you can't fix it and if you don't look past Jan 20th 2009 you're not going to see the problem of why.


If there a forest fire, it doesn't matter when it started, per say, one puts the damn thing out.

Next, citing Russia and China as effective 'big gov'ts' speaks hugely. I won't even respond to those two choices as it is an insult to rational thinking individuals. Both are repressive, kill/incarcerate dissidents, and make the U.S. look benign in comparison.[/quote


I didn't say China and Russia were nice places, and that's not what you asked for. I said their governments were effective. You can have repressive regimes that are both effective and ineffective, that's the difference between North Korea for example. You can also have happy freedom loving governments that are effective vs ineffective, that's the difference between the US and Norway. Additionally you can have small freedom loving governments that are effective vs ineffective that's the difference between Singapore and Somalia.

Hmm, sounds like your a Kissinger acolyte...


Singapore is a lousy example, perhaps Iceland, still, a exception that prove the rule. The larger the nation and the efforts to homogenize the populace into some manageable collection so as to make things easier for the Gov't.

This re-enforces my state by state opinion/view. Let each state decide for themselves when it comes to minimum wages. health care, marriage issues on and on. It was how the constitution was envisioned and set up. Individual rights allow for variables in individual views, enforcement from an ever increasing big gov't represses those varying views.

Healthcare as a state issue is fine, marriage not so much because it gets into civil rights which are already a federal issue under the constitution. Minimum wage again is fine if it's not decided at a federal level, but as I've said so many times states rights is not a position on an issue, it's only limiting who can vote on the issue and where it applies. If your state is deciding minimum wage you still have to decide on how much it should be if it's there at all.


Agreed.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If your in a studio in a slum, change your employment. Don't ask me and businesses that already have a hard time surviving to subsidize your lack of creativity or efforts for upward mobility.

That only works on an individual level. Any given person can change their circumstances but there will always be a bottom 1% of income earners, a bottom 10%, and so on, just as there will always be a top 1%. Bathrooms still need mopped, toilets cleaned, cashiers and shelf stockers in stores. Those people need to be able to earn a living.

It is obvious to me that we are adversaries when it comes to gov't size and power versus individual liberties.

Maybe, maybe not. I just don't see size of government as an issue.


It's obvious to me that size is an issue. The Constitution, the supreme law, is violated by gov't. The bigger the gov't, the more it is violated. When gov't was smaller, in days past, there was far less violation of that Constitution. Less 'interpretations'. Now? A lip-service document, violated when inconvenient.

The gov't we have now actually represents the split in views of the general population. The grid-lock in the Federal gov't reflects the same grid-lock at the grass roots level.

There isn't that much grid lock at the grass roots level, people for the most part agree on the issues, they aren't ideologues. What people are is partisan, they only want to listen to a solution if their side proposes it. Due to the two party system, most issues can't be solved because no one can agree without making their side look weak.



I disagree.

THAT is the result of big government. Big government only response to big groups. The individual becomes nothing. Your apparent support of the second amendment will eventually lose out to that big government and you know it.

Small government risks having the ability to enforce the constitution because the courts are too weak and there's not enough people internally to oppose certain actions. Large government risks the executive or legislative pressuring the judicial.

see the above. Small gov't had less violation of the Constitution, not more.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm not much into blame but you still have to recognize where a problem started if you're going to address how to fix it, otherwise you're doomed to be reactive rather than proactive and the chance of coming up with an effective solution is drastically reduced.

As far as Kissinger goes, I'm not a fan. His foreign policy basically consisted of overthrowing everyone in South America, he pushed Vietnam, and he has helped to facilitate multiple genocides. Pretty much the only good things he did were open up China, and he kept negotiations going with the Soviets .

As far as the government adhering more to the constitution when it was small. John Adams used the Alien and Sedition acts so that no one could criticize him. James Madison, the very guy who wrote the constitution came up with the idea and implemented civil asset forfeiture, to avoid having the government fight court cases it couldn't win.

When the government was at the smallest it has ever been, just after it was founded it was doing things just as screwed up as it's doing today. Remember that the precursor to the current government under the Articles of Confederation (which was the epitome of all things being up to the states) resulted in the government collapsing because it was too small and too weak.

a reply to: Aazadan

You can point out individual egs where the Constitution was 'violated' when there was 'small gov't.

To say that what we face now is no different with big gov't is, frankly, unbelievable. We have a President that has given free rein to virtually every federal department and agency to enact their myopic 'wish-list' in an apparent Quid Pro Quo.

From common core, DHS, Environmentalists via the EPA, medical coverage, Immigration virtually all violate the 10th or outright violate extant laws with virtual impunity.

Any suggestion that 'small gov't' was no different is, at the least, spin, if not outright disingenuous.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Maybe so, I won't argue the point further in this thread it's going rather off topic. So to return to the $15/hour minimum wage, what would you say is an appropriate wage in relation to other goods?

How many hours a week should a person have to work to feed themselves?

How many hours for a roof?

If you agree with the idea that people shouldn't be able to support themselves with certain jobs then are you fine with cutting back on those jobs? 36% of our labor force is currently at or near the minimum wage, but only 2% of our labor force is made up of 16-18 years olds that don't need to worry about supporting themselves. Could businesses survive by cutting 17 out of every 18 low skilled jobs so that they only go to a certain demographic?

a reply to: Aazadan

How about they are paid a proportional amount of money comparable to the value of the work they are doing IE democratically.

The guy in the office deciding the color of the logo is by far not worth more then the guy stocking the shelves. The guy stocking the is integral to the business. They couldn't sell any products if they can't actually be bought. If the cashier doesn't take their money, they can't sell any items.

Their value is in the job and service they provide, integral parts of the company.

a reply to: Aazadan

Good question. The reason there is so few 16-18 year old in that minimum wage or near minimum bracket is, in large part, due to that mandated wage.

If that job and it's financial cost is both necessary and a financial burden, he will hire the most likely candidate to succeed in that position. Will it be a kid with little or no job experience or someone older with a resume and a work history?

Following that logic, increasing that minimum wage increases the pressure on that prospective employer to be even more selective in his hiring practices...less kids.

I shoveled businesses' sidewalks when it snowed, cut grass, delivered newspapers...all under the age of 16. Today? Forget it. it would be 'illegal'.

Too often, laws that are promoted as solving a problem merely creates new problems. Minimum wage laws fall into that category, IMO.

I see Reagan's "Gov't isn't the solution to the problem, gov't is the problem" as more true than not. There is no way a gov't can bring a whole class of people 'up' as opposed to individual achievement. It cannot be mandated and certainly not without created unintended or ignored consequences to those mandates.

Of course many see this as a righteous act. I do not see it as so clear-cut. Being not clear-cut, my view is let the supply and demand market place dictate the issue. It's not gov'ts job or within it's capability to fix without damaging others in that so-called fix.

Politics drives this issue and uses that 'natural desire for more' for it's own ends.

a reply to: onequestion

Unless you work for yourself it's not possible to pay a person what they're worth. The whole concept of profit margins implies the person you hire is generating more value than they're paid. There's also a lot of subtle value that can be added. For example lets take your logo example.

A logo identifies a brand, there is a whole field that goes into what subconscious effects different colors and groups of colors create and there is a substantial cost to changing your logo once the brand is established. How effective a logo is, is tough to measure but it can be responsible for a huge percentage of sales over several years. For example the difference between an orange/blue logo (a very popular contrast) and red/green (an equal but less popular contrast) could be responsible for as much as 15% of your sales volume.

In comparison the person stocking shelves is putting product out so that it can be displayed and sold, but they can only sell to customers who are interested due to the logo in the first place. You also need several stockers compared to one graphic designer. Additionally, depending on the business model there are ways to avoid stocking, Amazon is a popular example. Many businesses these days are partially online.

My view is that they're both integral, few jobs aren't a necessity for a business.