Rise of Minimum wage?

[thegreekdog]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

[PLAYER57832]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.

It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.

[thegreekdog]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.

It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?

And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?

[PLAYER57832]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.

It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?

And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?

Yes, I did.. but admitting that would require you think about your position a bit more.

Sorry, not in the mood to play the attorney game today. Either answer or don't.

The answer IS because they NEED protection and that is part of the purpose of those in charge. When they are not protected, we all are harmed.

[thegreekdog]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.

It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?

And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?

Yes, I did.. but admitting that would require you think about your position a bit more.

Sorry, not in the mood to play the attorney game today. Either answer or don't.

The answer IS because they NEED protection and that is part of the purpose of those in charge. When they are not protected, we all are harmed.

Answering the question would actually require YOU to think about YOUR position more. Wringing your hands doesn't answer the question.

[PLAYER57832]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

Why?

Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.

It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?

And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?

Yes, I did.. but admitting that would require you think about your position a bit more.

Sorry, not in the mood to play the attorney game today. Either answer or don't.

The answer IS because they NEED protection and that is part of the purpose of those in charge. When they are not protected, we all are harmed.

Answering the question would actually require YOU to think about YOUR position more. Wringing your hands doesn't answer the question.

One more time... because if they are not protected, we are all harmed and the government is the entity ultimately responsible.

If that is not good enough, then try some reading on the basis for governments. Its a pretty well-discussed issue.
The trouble you are having is that you just don't agree, but want to pretend it is a failure on my part to address your point, rather than a fundamental disagreement.

[thegreekdog]

One more time... because if they are not protected, we are all harmed and the government is the entity ultimately responsible.

If that is not good enough, then try some reading on the basis for governments. Its a pretty well-discussed issue.
The trouble you are having is that you just don't agree, but want to pretend it is a failure on my part to address your point, rather than a fundamental disagreement.

If it's a fundamental disagreement that is based on the basis for governments and it is well-discussed, you should have no problem demonstrating why the government is ultimately responsible. Otherwise, it's just me saying "the government doesn't have to ultimately be responsible because there are other ways AND the government has demonstrated that it is inefficient and ineffective at best and perpetuates and worsens the problems at worst" and you saying "Nuh uh because of stuff I can't get into right now."

[tzor]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

I don't see that as an enumerated power in the Constitution. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Jefferson were alive today, the thought that the Government should be involved in "charity" would have him fly into a rage about some "wall of separation of church and state."

Again, a government's job is to ensure "inalienable rights" not "protect the bottom."

[stahrgazer]

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.

I don't see that as an enumerated power in the Constitution. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Jefferson were alive today, the thought that the Government should be involved in "charity" would have him fly into a rage about some "wall of separation of church and state."

Again, a government's job is to ensure "inalienable rights" not "protect the bottom."

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

You must also realize that things like civil rights and equal rights legislation appear to grant gov't power to "protect the bottom." In addition, labor laws were inherently designed to "protect the bottom." Remember, left on their own devices, corporations have historically abused their bottom employees and sometimes continue to do so outside the United States. Examples within the US are the tactics in the meat-packing industry - illuminated in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" -employing women to do the job men do but at a lesser wage - arguable whether this trend still exists - employing child labor - now illegal in the US but still occurs in "US" companies outside the US until the company tactics are found out and boycotted - such as Nike.

I don't agree with a rise to "minimum wage" in and of itself; but to say the government hasn't taken on the role of "protect the bottom," is inaccurate. It has with the types of concerns I've pointed out here, and for the most part, it has because "the public" demanded it, which means, "we the people" freely granted "the government" the right to "protect the bottom."

Even the first minimum wage laws were designed to "protect the bottom."

So. You might argue that the government shouldn't do it - anymore - but if you want to argue that, then don't support things like "equal rights," "civil rights," "gay rights," and "minimum work age requirements" because those are examples of laws designed to "protect the bottom."

[thegreekdog]

I'm pretty sure the unalienable rights (or inalienable rights) aren't in the Constitution.

[tzor]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

You must also realize that things like civil rights and equal rights legislation appear to grant gov't power to "protect the bottom."

Not really, although it is not all that easy to explain. First of all, inequality, like monopoly, almost requires government to be fully implemented (which is against the contract that government secure inalienable rights to all). Slavery in the south, for example, was made possible by the enforcement of law in southern states. "Separate but equal" was the result of the enforcement of Jim Crow laws.

Thus when we get to "civil rights" we have government once again securing inalienable rights equally to everyone. This can be seen in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "dream" of a color-blind nation.

In addition, labor laws were inherently designed to "protect the bottom."

The history of union and labor laws is an interesting and complex history. To suggest that they were to "protect the bottom" is inaccurate. They tended to be fraternal and not charitable; they were designed to protect their own members, not per se the people at the bottom.

Even the first minimum wage laws were designed to "protect the bottom."

Knight to Kings Bishop 2; Check and Mate ... oops wrong game. No really, the first minimum wage laws were enacted because African Americans were moving north and taking construction jobs at wages below the standard union wage at the time (at a time when unions consisted of white males). They were put in place so that given a choice of paying a white union member and an African American non union member, most people would choose the former, given that the same wage had to be paid to both.

The bigot's first rule: Get the government to oppress the one you hate.

SOURCE

Forty years ago, the politicians who pushed for the increased minimum wage did not hide their motives. Nor, in an era of state-sanctioned segregation, did they feel the need to hide their knowledge of who the intended victims of minimum-wage legislation would be. In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who just four years later would be President of the United States, stated,

Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too – the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage – and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work – it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it?

[Night Strike]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

[PLAYER57832]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

[stahrgazer]

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Actually, securing the rights for all does equate to "protect the bottom." Those on top have the power to protect their own rights, it's the bottom folks who aren't strong enough to do it on their own (without a revolution such as the Revolutionary War where bottom folks in the Colonies revolted against the strong folks backed by the King.) In addition to the civil, labor, and equal protection rights I mentioned before.

[thegreekdog]

Okay... guys? Guys? GUYS?!?!?!

Inalienable rights is not in the Constitution. There is no basis in law for the government to protect your inalienable rights (anyway, it was in the Declaration of Indepenence as unalienable rights). The weak are protected by the government because enough people chose enough representatives and presidents who decided that it would be better for the government to help those people than for non-government institutions and individuals to help those people. There is no right to work, there is no right to food on your table, there is no right to flat screen tvs or houses or cars. If you have these things because of the government, you have them because people selected representatives who chose to give these things to you.

[tzor]

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Close, but close only works for horse shoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

Slavery is when you are forced to work. Ironically, you can be compensated. Washington (that odd southerner, he actually made a profit) actually "paid" his slaves when farm conditions forced them to work on Sunday. Never the less, they were still "slaves." They had to work, paid or not.

If you work for someone who doesn't pay you; you have the right not to work for that someone. Therefore it is not slavery.

If you work for someone on an agreed rate and that person doesn't pay that agreed rate, that is a violation of contract law. Even libertarians strongly believe in the role of government to arbitrate contract law disputes.

[tzor]

Inalienable rights is not in the Constitution.

Yes, and?

The law of gravity is not in the constitution either.

Original purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government; nothing more and nothing less.

Original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to add a belt and suspenders to that notion. It was opposed by some because the specifying of some rights assumed that anything not covered was fair game.

Since no branch of the Federal Government has the power to alter any inalienable right, or to contradict any inalienable right, according to the 10th amendment, the power is passed to the states or the people.

Thus under the constitution, the states secure inalienable rights, therefore there is no need for the federal government to duplicate that effort.

[tzor]

(anyway, it was in the Declaration of Indepenence as unalienable rights)

I take it you haven't seen the musical 1776. Rent the movie out one day. Pay attention to the actor who is the only one who doesn't sign the document (he leaves at the end). He once dated my mother.

[thegreekdog]

Inalienable rights is not in the Constitution.

Yes, and?

The law of gravity is not in the constitution either.

Original purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government; nothing more and nothing less.

Original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to add a belt and suspenders to that notion. It was opposed by some because the specifying of some rights assumed that anything not covered was fair game.

Since no branch of the Federal Government has the power to alter any inalienable right, or to contradict any inalienable right, according to the 10th amendment, the power is passed to the states or the people.

Thus under the constitution, the states secure inalienable rights, therefore there is no need for the federal government to duplicate that effort.

If it helps, I wasn't talking to you. Well, I was talking to you in the sense that I was trying to help you.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Nah, it's called "unemployment."

[The Bison King]

I sort of see raising the minimum wage as the king of meaningless gestures. Mcdonalds pays it's employees minimum and a hamburger is $1. If they raise minimum wage the company's just gonna start charging $1.50 for a hamburger to make up the cost. As far as "bang for your buck" is concerned the people at the bottom will be making the same amount of money. All i does is screw over people like me who hover above minimum only to have it keep coming up to meet me. It also decreases the value of your savings if it drives up the prices of everyday goods.

It seems like a nice gesture but in my life the raising of minimum wage has never been beneficial. At least that's how I see it.

[PLAYER57832]

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Close, but close only works for horse shoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

Slavery is when you are forced to work. Ironically, you can be compensated. Washington (that odd southerner, he actually made a profit) actually "paid" his slaves when farm conditions forced them to work on Sunday. Never the less, they were still "slaves." They had to work, paid or not.

If you work for someone who doesn't pay you; you have the right not to work for that someone. Therefore it is not slavery.

If you work for someone on an agreed rate and that person doesn't pay that agreed rate, that is a violation of contract law. Even libertarians strongly believe in the role of government to arbitrate contract law disputes.

Nice try, but in this case, hand grenades work quite well.

The real POINT is that people who work but cannot eat well, cloth and house themselves are being oppressed, whether they "agree to it" or not.

People will agree to almost anything under diress. Nightstrikes definition of "agreement" can be rather interesting. Still, the larger point is that the only reason they can "agree" without, say stooping to theft and so forth to add to their income, is government subsidies.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no gaurantee that anyone in business will succeed. For all this talk of the "free market" by NS, etc, that part seems to get missed. It is not the government's obligation to ensure businesses make a profit, it is the government's job to protect the people at the very bottom who lack the power to protect themselves against those more than willing to take advantage.

But it's bad for the government when they're actively working against businesses being successful and profitable because if businesses aren't profitable, the government doesn't get as much money (although they do enact junk fees and registrations on every action). And the government's role of protecting people means they get to keep businesses from harming/killing their workers or violating contracts, it doesn't say that the government gets to dictate the terms of those contracts.

OH please, its up to business to succeed or fail. Any business that cannot pay its workers enough to live upon is not a profitable business, flat out. No artificial government supports will change that fact.

You claim to be about independence, but when it comes to business... suddenly your toon changes. Its time to stop this idea that government supporting WORKERS is reasonable. Unless we are talking truly disabled individuals, perhaps a few other groups like prisoners, it isn't. The minimum anyone should be paid is what it takes them to live upon, plain and simply. Anything else is no less abusive than the monarches who claimed they had every right to take whatever grain they wanted from the field because they owned it, no matter how little the serfs had left to live upon. The fact that you wish to claim its "freedom" to choose to eat a little rather than nothing or to choose to eat and live on the street is just stupid rhetoric.

[PLAYER57832]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Nah, it's called "unemployment."

Note the "working" bit... unemployment means not working at all.

[PLAYER57832]

I sort of see raising the minimum wage as the king of meaningless gestures. Mcdonalds pays it's employees minimum and a hamburger is $1. If they raise minimum wage the company's just gonna start charging $1.50 for a hamburger to make up the cost. As far as "bang for your buck" is concerned the people at the bottom will be making the same amount of money. All i does is screw over people like me who hover above minimum only to have it keep coming up to meet me. It also decreases the value of your savings if it drives up the prices of everyday goods.

It seems like a nice gesture but in my life the raising of minimum wage has never been beneficial. At least that's how I see it.

Nice try, but long term shows a different story.

The real problem is not that the minimum wage keeps rising, it is truly that the percentage that folks who earn money from means other than work, who want money from investment (including some workers, but that actually just makes it worse) is increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living.

Investment is fine, but the rock of any society is work, not investment. Investment adds to the work, spurs it on, but without that foundation, there is nothing. Just like any industry can add to employment, the economy, BUT if you don't have a foundation of food and other basic needs, then the rest just doesn't matter.