Senate blocks minimum wage hike

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

right, but the states decide how and what to distribute the funds.

States can't refuse it. Basic welfare laws are setup federally, and states CAN expand on them if they want (like, how to punish someone if they're caught cheating, or giving more money in certain circumstances), but still have to obey the federal laws.

In that sense, my money might be going to help another state's poor more than mine. People might be really poor in West Virginia, but I'd rather make sure the poor are ok in Georgia first.

Plus, if welfare was de-federalized, it'd be a lot more likely that some states would choose not to have a welfare system. That's the freedom of the people in that state. That also means that I'd be at some Georgia government forums right now saying "we should get rid of welfare and let the people take care of themselves and others as they personally see fit"

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

States can't refuse it. Basic welfare laws are setup federally, and states CAN expand on them if they want (like, how to punish someone if they're caught cheating, or giving more money in certain circumstances), but still have to obey the federal laws.

In that sense, my money might be going to help another state's poor more than mine. People might be really poor in West Virginia, but I'd rather make sure the poor are ok in Georgia first.

Plus, if welfare was de-federalized, it'd be a lot more likely that some states would choose not to have a welfare system. That's the freedom of the people in that state. That also means that I'd be at some Georgia government forums right now saying "we should get rid of welfare and let the people take care of themselves and others as they personally see fit"

it'd be interesting to see what happens

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I do understand patents.. I'm pointing out that it's ironic for someone who is fine with trusts, open wages, no federal safety regulations, etc to take an interest in something like patent protection.

It's PROPERTY protection. I don't think I should be allowed to come into your house and steal your TV. That's not even anarchy, that's chaos. Government is needed to punish those who violate my rights (all of which must be setup via legislation). But government shouldn't be allowed to TAKE my rights (like eminent domain, where they can just vote amongst themselves to take my land without my permission).

Patents outline your intellectual property. But the thing about thoughts is, someone can't just go into your house, steal it, get caught with it by the police, and get sent to jail. You have to have your thoughts written down to outline them, THEN the government knows who that thought belongs to.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's PROPERTY protection. I don't think I should be allowed to come into your house and steal your TV. That's not even anarchy, that's chaos. Government is needed to punish those who violate my rights (all of which must be setup via legislation). But government shouldn't be allowed to TAKE my rights (like eminent domain, where they can just vote amongst themselves to take my land without my permission).

Patents outline your intellectual property. But the thing about thoughts is, someone can't just go into your house, steal it, get caught with it by the police, and get sent to jail. You have to have your thoughts written down to outline them, THEN the government knows who that thought belongs to.

It still goes against the idea of a free market enterprise by removing competition

[Ardentfrost]

You'll have to explain it more than that, because I don't think it does. The free market doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whenever you want. Again, that's chaos. I can't make a company to come and steal your TV (the profit margin would be great though). Something that company did would be breaking the law, and punishable. Stealing someone's intellectual property is the same as stealing their physical property.

404: no contradiction found

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You'll have to explain it more than that, because I don't think it does. The free market doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whenever you want. Again, that's chaos. I can't make a company to come and steal your TV (the profit margin would be great though). Something that company did would be breaking the law, and punishable. Stealing someone's intellectual property is the same as stealing their physical property.

404: no contradiction found

we're discussing rights.. you state that having employers pay a wage that is standard to a healthy level takes away those rights. The loss of those 'rights' are minimal compared to other things such as safety and code laws, as well as patent laws which takes away the right to have a competitive product.

[Pro Street]

ok, I couldn't find a graph that explained my point about how little difference minimum wage would have, and why I don't feel it's such a bad thing.

dark red represents the median income of families

blue represents inflation

green is the minimum wage

the black bars are just representations of the differential between the median income and minimum wage

purple is the proposed wage increase

the graph begins at around 1995 so I set those to almost zero.

now, this is imperfect, informal, and just an illustration of what say.. this is not a statistic although I can, if you wish, get the actual numbers. The point is that the median income and inflation will continue to go up regardless of the minimum wage. The number of workes is so small that it would have no effect on inflation. In addition, as many oponents have said, most state levels are higher than the proposed increase so that would nullify it even more. However, for those that it does increase, all it really does is match the levels back in 1995 when the last hike was.




median income has gone up.
the cost of living has gone up.
inflation has gone up.
those wages have stayed the same.

this leads ot a class seperation and makes it harder for those in a hole to dig themselves out, and forces them to rely more on welfare to cover the additional costs. raising the wage will take the burden OFF of taxpayers and cost less state/federal revenue.

The tax break to small businesses prevents the hike from negatively affecting small businesses, which was a major point that opponents used to argue it.

[Ardentfrost]

Whoa whoa whoa, how do they have a RIGHT to a competitive product? They have the right to do any amount of R&D they want, but if they produce a product that isn't their own, they are taking away someone else's property which is a violation of that person's rights.

The company should have a right to pay and treat and hire it's employees however it wants, as well as create a product however it wants including any quality it wants and any amount it wants. However, the product being made must either be their own or they must be licensed to produce that product by whoever owns the intellectual property related to said product. In much the same way they paid someone for a machine they use to make products, the money paid goes to more than just the cost of materials and labor to make that machine, but also to someone who invented the machine. Likewise, what that machine is used to produce can be the intellectual property of someone else who needs compensation for their idea.

Patents infringe on no one's right, it protects someone's property.

I don't see where the confusion here is.

Anything you dig out of the ground with your own hands is your physical property.
Any idea you dig out of your ass with your own brain is your intellectual property.
Property is protected by the government (outlined by the constitution).

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Whoa whoa whoa, how do they have a RIGHT to a competitive product? They have the right to do any amount of R&D they want, but if they produce a product that isn't their own, they are taking away someone else's property which is a violation of that person's rights.

The company should have a right to pay and treat and hire it's employees however it wants, as well as create a product however it wants including any quality it wants and any amount it wants. However, the product being made must either be their own or they must be licensed to produce that product by whoever owns the intellectual property related to said product. In much the same way they paid someone for a machine they use to make products, the money paid goes to more than just the cost of materials and labor to make that machine, but also to someone who invented the machine. Likewise, what that machine is used to produce can be the intellectual property of someone else who needs compensation for their idea.

Patents infringe on no one's right, it protects someone's property.

I don't see where the confusion here is.

Anything you dig out of the ground with your own hands is your physical property.
Any idea you dig out of your ass with your own brain is your intellectual property.
Property is protected by the government (outlined by the constitution).

I'm not against patents, I'm pointing out how the bold statement and your ideals on patents do contradict. you feel it's fine for a company to operate how it wants, except when it hurts business.

I'll try a different example.

Environmental laws, forcing companies to pay sums of money and taxes to clean up its waste, or its property.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Weren't you for smoking bans?

No! For the god damn umpteenth-fucking-time I am not in favor of smoking bans! Jesus-fucking-Christ, you've asked me that how many times now?

But to address what you said, almost every tax infringes on the rights of others.

Strawman. If you're trying to formulate some sort of objective argument, you are inherently bound by the "rules of debate."

Welfarer, social security, any government program.. including things like the FDA, patent laws, copyright laws... all do so. Environmental protection laws, OSHA, all of those do the same thing.

Excellent. Now give me your objective reasoning.

The difference is that what you consider a right is not defined as such in the Constitution.

My idea of "right" coincides quite nicely with the classical liberal idea that was expressed by the Founding Fathers. The consideration of an abstract "right" doesn't exist in the Constitution because of the manner in which was written, which further lends truth to my original statement. The fact is, the Founding Fathers believed that rights are inherent; self-evident truths; endowed by a Creator. To try and argue otherwise is not only a mark of your ignorance regarding the foundation of this country, but it's also downright stupid considering the views and opinions that were expressed by the Fathers regarding rights.

Safety laws infringe on a business owner's rights, so do local and national codes. Do you complain about them?

Yes.

[MKULTRA]

Environmental laws, not all of them, but some of them stop businesses from violating the rights of other humans. If you're polluting someone's drinking water then you are violating your rights and overstepping your bounds as a business owner.

Right now in this country we're decreasing minimum wage while we increase corporate welfare. Minimum wage staying the same is a decrease, as the currency is devalued.

If we're going to keep pumping inequalities into the market then we should at least keep minimum wage what it was. But if you're going to argue against minimum wage then we need to cut out the corporate welfare as well. And I would not ever trust these people to do that. Cut corporate welfare, Cut out the slave labor overseas. Then let's talk about getting rid of or reducing the minimum wage.

The implementation of these ideas can be just as vital as the ideas themselves.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Phantom

what element of a welfare program is missing? The workers are getting higher wages, and those higher wages are supported by assitance from the government (lower taxes on the businesses that will supposedly pay those wages)

Yes, but the money comes from what the businesses earn. How is it the governments money just because they have unlimited power to tax? You could just as easily argue that a Federal minimum wage hike is a new tax on small business.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is the way to go. But it is better than just a wage hike mandate. I think a small business can do more with that tax break money for the economy than the government.

[RMNIXON]

And consider this "Mona Charen" Column 1/22:

The Census Bureau finds 63.2 % of individuals 16 or older living in poverty did not work at all durring the year prior to the survey.

What they need to lift them out of poverty are jobs! Once in the door who can gain experiance and move up to higher wages as 63% do in the first year and all but 15% after three years.

This is all "feel good" at the expence of the small business creating broader employment.

I give credit to the Senate. They want to stop the free Federal give away and make the government pay up for their so-called good deed!

[TheScatman]

I;m glad it was blocked, my opposition to the bill stems for a few places:

1) I dont believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to set a minimum wage for commerce that takes place in just one state (prob covers msot of the jobs they want to affect ie. mcdoanlds workers, etc.) IF there was a minimum wage, I'd want the states to set it

2) Philosophically I dont believe that governemnt should be in the business of setting prices in the market...it seems awfully paternalistic that some can run up credit cards debt, be held responsible for crimes they commit, yet need help bargaining for their wages

3) It causes unemployment and stunts economic growth

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

No! For the god damn umpteenth-fucking-time I am not in favor of smoking bans! Jesus-fucking-Christ, you've asked me that how many times now?

twice

Strawman. If you're trying to formulate some sort of objective argument, you are inherently bound by the "rules of debate."

in the context of a federal payout based upon federal tax money obtained from the citizens, as such?

better?

Excellent. Now give me your objective reasoning.

I've lived in both areas, I'm not rich, I'm not on minimum wage right now, but have been.

My idea of "right" coincides quite nicely with the classical liberal idea that was expressed by the Founding Fathers. The consideration of an abstract "right" doesn't exist in the Constitution because of the manner in which was written, which further lends truth to my original statement. The fact is, the Founding Fathers believed that rights are inherent; self-evident truths; endowed by a Creator. To try and argue otherwise is not only a mark of your ignorance regarding the foundation of this country, but it's also downright stupid considering the views and opinions that were expressed by the Fathers regarding rights.

If all rights are inherent and self evident, than any law would be a violation of those rights. The Constitution states that the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness is self evident. There's nothing prohibiting a minimum wage.

Yes.

You have problems with safety laws?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I'm not against patents, I'm pointing out how the bold statement and your ideals on patents do contradict. you feel it's fine for a company to operate how it wants, except when it hurts business.

I'll try a different example.

Environmental laws, forcing companies to pay sums of money and taxes to clean up its waste, or its property.

No no, what you bolded is me saying that I think a business should be ALLOWED by the government to run how it sees fit. However, if how it sees fit doesn't align with market forces, it will fail and fast.

Patents have nothing to do with how a business is run, it's merely a written document stating what someone has thought of. If someone has thought of it, the production of it is stealing his thought unless he allows the production to occur. No where in there does the government get involved in a "stop business" sense. If someone does produce another person's idea without their permission, the government STILL doesn't get involved. The owner of the idea hires a lawyer who sends a cease and desist order to the producer, else legal action will be brought against him. AGAIN, NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT OTHER THAN HOLDING THE RECORDS.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

Environmental laws, not all of them, but some of them stop businesses from violating the rights of other humans. If you're polluting someone's drinking water then you are violating your rights and overstepping your bounds as a business owner.

I like the way you put this. I've always thought that there must be some way my ideology could be applied to the environment, I just wasn't sure specifically how... I know what my personal preferences are, but I don't necessarily want to rely on market forces to protect our drinking water, for instance. So, in that respect, I do like the idea of the government (state or whatever) being in charge of protecting our liberties from pollutants.

Though I do hate that there must be lines drawn. For instance, you can say "no one is allowed to put anything into the water directly, or in the ground because it can get into the water table" but you can't say the same for air since we use coal as a big producer of electricity. And even without coal, do you count steam? Plus, how exactly do you enforce it? Charging the company can just become a matter of "is it more expensive to dispose of it legally or illegally and just pay the fine if and when they catch us?" I also hate the idea of nonviolent criminals going to jail, but I don't think I'd oppose the dumper going to jail for doing it. Then, if an employee is told to go dump toxic waste in the nearby stream, they'd be like "fuck no, I'm not going to jail for you."

The environment is such a fuzzy area with me. I think the EPA is a piece of garbage that doesn't protect shit and I'm all for getting rid of it, but I also don't want to fully take enviro-protection from being policed.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

I;m glad it was blocked, my opposition to the bill stems for a few places:

1) I dont believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to set a minimum wage for commerce that takes place in just one state (prob covers msot of the jobs they want to affect ie. mcdoanlds workers, etc.) IF there was a minimum wage, I'd want the states to set it

2) Philosophically I dont believe that governemnt should be in the business of setting prices in the market...it seems awfully paternalistic that some can run up credit cards debt, be held responsible for crimes they commit, yet need help bargaining for their wages

3) It causes unemployment and stunts economic growth

Well put