|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 27, 2015 13:00:27 GMT
"[W]ork or starve to death" is a fallacy commonly known as the false alternative. The real alternative is work for Company X; work for Company Y; work for Company Z; or work for some other company, entirely. To say that companies get federal contracts only if they agree to participate in affirmative-action programs, yet it is entirely "voluntary," is a bit like claiming that it is purely "voluntary" to do as the Mafia instructs, lest one's kneecaps might be broken. Your response, as concerning the exact wording on those studies, seems to boil down to this, essentially: You have no idea just what that wording was (with a single exception); but it is all just too "complex," anyway, to be understood by anyone but "the expert" who have peer-reviewed it. As usual, you have far more faith in the federal government than I do. In fact, you view state and local programs as "a complete failure," and the federal government as our national savior. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the nation was founded--in fact, we actually needed more immigration--so, of course it was not included in our Constitution. But this is not a thread about illegal immigration. So please do not make an attempt at deflection. No, "[t]he only way to reduce welfare assistance" is to eliminate the dole. Entirely.
The problem is that based upon the Market Company X; Company Y; Company Z; and the "other company" are all providing the identical compensation based upon the Market that doesn't care if the worker can survive on it or not. The unemployed worker ultimately has no choice but to accept the compensation offered because his job search is very time sensitive. The worker cannot put off accepting employment indefinately while looking for another, better paying job. As I mentioned one of my father's axioms was, "The best time to look for a job is when you have a job" but when working their time is limited both related to seeking other employment and related to improving their job skills. So while the employed worker can look for another job while working all of the other jobs pay the same compensation dictated by the Market so it's virtually a no-win situation.
No enterprise has to enter into contracts either directly or indirectly with the federal government. It can also be noted that for those that do the costs of Affirmative Action are logically included as a part of the enterprise's bid for the contract so the enterprise is being paid for the conditions of the contract. When bidding on any contract the enterprise must account for all costs related to fulfilling the provisions of the contract and with the federal government it includes the costs of complying with the Affirmative Action guidelines. Basically the enterprise is making money, including profits, from the federal government solely based upon fulfilling the provisions for Affirmative Action by being a federal contractor.
There is literally no difference between the scientific studies of people and the scientific studies of particle physics, the cosmos, or geology. Only the experts in both fields are capable of really understanding the studies and if they dispute the findings then they conduct their own studies that would contradict the prior research and/or demonstrate errors in the prior research. Even when the experts agree with the conclusions they're compelled to conduct additional research and studies to confirm the prior conclusions. It's a never ending self-confirming and self-correcting process. That's how science works and that's how it's always worked. It's called the "scientific method" and it's basically been developed and validating itself for well over 2,000 years with orgins even pre-dating Aristotle. The error of some is that they believe there's a difference between studies of the social characteristics of people, or so-called "soft" sciences. and studies of physics, geology, chemistry, or other so-called "hard" sciences, but there is no difference in the scientific method being used. The methodology and validation process is identical and the studies (and validations) are done by experts in the field.
The issue was the Constitutionally enumerated roles and responsibilities of the federal government and neither "welfare assistance" or "controlling immigration" is an enumerated role or responsibility. To argue against one based upon a lack of enumerated Constitutional authority it to also argue against the other.
It isn't a question of "viewing" the failure of state and local government but instead merely a question of acknowledging that failure. I would far rather see the state and local government fulfill their responsibilities delegated to them by their State Constitution than to have federal interventionism but they've demonstrated they won't. The greatest failure appear to be in Republcan states and one example I would point to is in education.
The 10 worst states for education (based upon preparation for college by high schools) are Republican states. The primary cause behind poor education is under-funding for the high schools resulting in too many students per classroom. The national average is about 20 students when every study done indicates that a class size not to exceed 12 students per teacher in a class is optimal. If a state is under-performing then reducing class size is the best way to improve performance..... but these low performance Republican states refuse to increase taxes and funding to reduce class sizes. In fact many are cutting taxes creating even less funding for education. Every state has a state constitutional requirement for the state and local government to fund education but not a single state in the nation, Republican or Democrat, provides enough funding. That is a FACT. This was the driving force behind federal funding for education. Do I agree with federal funding for education? NO, I do not but the alternative of no federal funding is worse than the federal funding itself because the states have demonstrated they won't properly fund education even though their state constitution requires it.
The only way to eliminate the "dole" is to eliminate the need for it. Welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the poverty that creates the necessity in the first place. As a nation we need to address our problems, not ignore them, and poverty is the problem while welfare assistance is merely a symptom of the problem.
Go back and look at my privatization plan for Social Security that would also eliminate Medicare. It's based upon addressing the problem (a lack of wealth accumulation during the working career of the person to provide income when they retire) instead of the symptoms (a lack of income for living expenses including medical insurance). Address the problem, not the symptom.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 29, 2015 17:29:08 GMT
"[W]ork or starve to death" is a fallacy commonly known as the false alternative. The real alternative is work for Company X; work for Company Y; work for Company Z; or work for some other company, entirely. To say that companies get federal contracts only if they agree to participate in affirmative-action programs, yet it is entirely "voluntary," is a bit like claiming that it is purely "voluntary" to do as the Mafia instructs, lest one's kneecaps might be broken. Your response, as concerning the exact wording on those studies, seems to boil down to this, essentially: You have no idea just what that wording was (with a single exception); but it is all just too "complex," anyway, to be understood by anyone but "the expert" who have peer-reviewed it. As usual, you have far more faith in the federal government than I do. In fact, you view state and local programs as "a complete failure," and the federal government as our national savior. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the nation was founded--in fact, we actually needed more immigration--so, of course it was not included in our Constitution. But this is not a thread about illegal immigration. So please do not make an attempt at deflection. No, "[t]he only way to reduce welfare assistance" is to eliminate the dole. Entirely.
The problem is that based upon the Market Company X; Company Y; Company Z; and the "other company" are all providing the identical compensation based upon the Market that doesn't care if the worker can survive on it or not. The unemployed worker ultimately has no choice but to accept the compensation offered because his job search is very time sensitive. The worker cannot put off accepting employment indefinately while looking for another, better paying job. As I mentioned one of my father's axioms was, "The best time to look for a job is when you have a job" but when working their time is limited both related to seeking other employment and related to improving their job skills. So while the employed worker can look for another job while working all of the other jobs pay the same compensation dictated by the Market so it's virtually a no-win situation.
No enterprise has to enter into contracts either directly or indirectly with the federal government. It can also be noted that for those that do the costs of Affirmative Action are logically included as a part of the enterprise's bid for the contract so the enterprise is being paid for the conditions of the contract. When bidding on any contract the enterprise must account for all costs related to fulfilling the provisions of the contract and with the federal government it includes the costs of complying with the Affirmative Action guidelines. Basically the enterprise is making money, including profits, from the federal government solely based upon fulfilling the provisions for Affirmative Action by being a federal contractor.
There is literally no difference between the scientific studies of people and the scientific studies of particle physics, the cosmos, or geology. Only the experts in both fields are capable of really understanding the studies and if they dispute the findings then they conduct their own studies that would contradict the prior research and/or demonstrate errors in the prior research. Even when the experts agree with the conclusions they're compelled to conduct additional research and studies to confirm the prior conclusions. It's a never ending self-confirming and self-correcting process. That's how science works and that's how it's always worked. It's called the "scientific method" and it's basically been developed and validating itself for well over 2,000 years with orgins even pre-dating Aristotle. The error of some is that they believe there's a difference between studies of the social characteristics of people, or so-called "soft" sciences. and studies of physics, geology, chemistry, or other so-called "hard" sciences, but there is no difference in the scientific method being used. The methodology and validation process is identical and the studies (and validations) are done by experts in the field.
The issue was the Constitutionally enumerated roles and responsibilities of the federal government and neither "welfare assistance" or "controlling immigration" is an enumerated role or responsibility. To argue against one based upon a lack of enumerated Constitutional authority it to also argue against the other.
It isn't a question of "viewing" the failure of state and local government but instead merely a question of acknowledging that failure. I would far rather see the state and local government fulfill their responsibilities delegated to them by their State Constitution than to have federal interventionism but they've demonstrated they won't. The greatest failure appear to be in Republcan states and one example I would point to is in education.
The 10 worst states for education (based upon preparation for college by high schools) are Republican states. The primary cause behind poor education is under-funding for the high schools resulting in too many students per classroom. The national average is about 20 students when every study done indicates that a class size not to exceed 12 students per teacher in a class is optimal. If a state is under-performing then reducing class size is the best way to improve performance..... but these low performance Republican states refuse to increase taxes and funding to reduce class sizes. In fact many are cutting taxes creating even less funding for education. Every state has a state constitutional requirement for the state and local government to fund education but not a single state in the nation, Republican or Democrat, provides enough funding. That is a FACT. This was the driving force behind federal funding for education. Do I agree with federal funding for education? NO, I do not but the alternative of no federal funding is worse than the federal funding itself because the states have demonstrated they won't properly fund education even though their state constitution requires it.
The only way to eliminate the "dole" is to eliminate the need for it. Welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the poverty that creates the necessity in the first place. As a nation we need to address our problems, not ignore them, and poverty is the problem while welfare assistance is merely a symptom of the problem.
Go back and look at my privatization plan for Social Security that would also eliminate Medicare. It's based upon addressing the problem (a lack of wealth accumulation during the working career of the person to provide income when they retire) instead of the symptoms (a lack of income for living expenses including medical insurance). Address the problem, not the symptom.
Yes, all these different dompanies will be influenced by the market, as regarding what they are willing to pay. And I believe that market forces should be entirely decisive-- not what the prospective employee wants (or even needs). No, of course no company "has to" accept contracts by the federal government. But it may very well prove fiscally irresponsible to eschew such contracts--perhaps even fiscally ruinous, in some cases. So the federal government is, indeed, using Mafia-like powers of persuasion here. (Some might say coercion. ) Again, you place a lot of faith in "the experts"; which I really do not. "Statutory law" (for which you have previously established your disdain) allows us to control our own borders--just as every other nation in the world does. But this thread is really not dedicated to matters of immigration; so this does not represent some sort of natural evolution, but a total digression from the actual subject. Your solution for just about everything seems to be to throw more money at the problem. And you do not even propose fiscal offsets--i.e. reducing social spending of one sort, in order to spend more on education--but merely to raise taxes.
It is simply not the constitutional duty of the federal government to provide welfare checks for those who are impoverished (some, through no fault of their own; others--well, not so much). Moreover, as others have previously noted, this is probably the only country in the world in which "poor" people typically own one or more flat-screen TVs, a cell phone, and other luxuries. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 30, 2015 15:00:07 GMT
Yes, all these different dompanies will be influenced by the market, as regarding what they are willing to pay. And I believe that market forces should be entirely decisive-- not what the prospective employee wants (or even needs). No, of course no company "has to" accept contracts by the federal government. But it may very well prove fiscally irresponsible to eschew such contracts--perhaps even fiscally ruinous, in some cases. So the federal government is, indeed, using Mafia-like powers of persuasion here. (Some might say coercion. ) Again, you place a lot of faith in "the experts"; which I really do not. "Statutory law" (for which you have previously established your disdain) allows us to control our own borders--just as every other nation in the world does. But this thread is really not dedicated to matters of immigration; so this does not represent some sort of natural evolution, but a total digression from the actual subject. Your solution for just about everything seems to be to throw more money at the problem. And you do not even propose fiscal offsets--i.e. reducing social spending of one sort, in order to spend more on education--but merely to raise taxes.
It is simply not the constitutional duty of the federal government to provide welfare checks for those who are impoverished (some, through no fault of their own; others--well, not so much). Moreover, as others have previously noted, this is probably the only country in the world in which "poor" people typically own one or more flat-screen TVs, a cell phone, and other luxuries.
Unopposed Market forces, that always exert a downward presssure on compensation, have already created an economy where 40% of all workers will never be able to afford to live based exclusively on Market driven compensation. That percentage is growing and will continue to grow based upon an unopposed Market.
At what point will you say that the Market needs to be addressed? We're currently at well over 40% living in relative or absolute poverty. Mitt Romney, in 2012, correctly noted that 47% of working American households don't pay federal taxes (or actually have a negative income tax liability) because they don't have enough income to pay federal taxes. Does that percentage need to rise to 50%, 60% 80% or 95% before you're willing to say something needs to be done to balance the downward pressure on compensation by the "Market" that you appear to worship? Many conservatives complain about the tax burden of the top 1% but what happens when only the top 1% have enough income to be able to afford to pay taxes? Will you think it's about time to address Market compensation then?
You rally to the defense of a company that might need to depend upon government contracts but don't rally to the need of the worker that is forced to accept employment that doesn't provide them with enough compensation to live on. We don't expect the business to operate at a loss so why do you expect a person to operate at a loss?
There has to be a balance where the enterprise can operate at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures) and where the employee can operate at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures). That WIN-WIN situation must exist for the ecomony to benefit the people of the nation and it can exist.
My solution is not to simply "throw more money" at a problem but instead is to reduce or eliminate the problem.
If we have a Win-Win situation where the Enterprise and the Employee are both operating at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures) because we eliminate the necessity for welfare assistance for working Americans. If we pragmatically privatize Social Security and Medicare so that the individual generates personal assets during their working career they will have income from their financial assets at retirement they don't need government retirement or medical welfare assistance currenlty being provided for by Social Security and Medicare. If employers provide health insurance for their employees we don't need Obamacare for working employees. If we only worry about defending the Unites States from invasion/attack we don't need 12 carrier groups and could easily defend the United States with four carrier groups. If we relied on the Army Reserves as opposed to the Regular Army (as envisioned by the founders that advocated reliance on "militias" as opposed to a "standing army" in the Constitution) we could easily reduce the cost of the US Army by 50% without losing any capacity to defend the United States.
None of these "cost savings" are achieved by "spending cuts" but instead are addressed by focusing on the cause of the spending that reduces the spending. By reducing the necessity for the spending the budget automatically shrinks and that's what I advocate. Simply "cutting the spending" means the problems creating the necessity for the spending are not being addressed and that's irresponsible. Reducing the "necessity" reduces the spending without "budget cutting" because the reasons for the spending simply disappear. Reducing poverty reduces welfare spending and reducing military interventionism in the affairs of other countries reduces military spending and both of those reduce the size and cost of government.
It's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to wage foreign wars when the US has not been attacked or invaded. It's not the Constitutional reponsibility of the federal government to control immigration. It's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to control what the person consumes such as plants like marijuana or opium from the poppy plant.
As you also note it's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to provide welfare to the people (but it is to provide for the welfare of the states) because that's a state Constitutional responsibility.
So how do we require the states to fulfill their Constitutional responsibility to provide for the welfare of the people?
Under Obamacare Medicaid was expanded and the Federal government funded that expansion (i.e. providing for the welfare of the states) but many states refused to provide for the "welfare of the people" by accepting the funding for the expansion.
Under our Federalist from of government there are divided roles and responsibilities between the federal and state governments but the States have consistantly failed in their designated roles and responsibilities to the people. What is your proposal to fix that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2015 20:58:13 GMT
Yes, all these different dompanies will be influenced by the market, as regarding what they are willing to pay. And I believe that market forces should be entirely decisive-- not what the prospective employee wants (or even needs). No, of course no company "has to" accept contracts by the federal government. But it may very well prove fiscally irresponsible to eschew such contracts--perhaps even fiscally ruinous, in some cases. So the federal government is, indeed, using Mafia-like powers of persuasion here. (Some might say coercion. ) Again, you place a lot of faith in "the experts"; which I really do not. "Statutory law" (for which you have previously established your disdain) allows us to control our own borders--just as every other nation in the world does. But this thread is really not dedicated to matters of immigration; so this does not represent some sort of natural evolution, but a total digression from the actual subject. Your solution for just about everything seems to be to throw more money at the problem. And you do not even propose fiscal offsets--i.e. reducing social spending of one sort, in order to spend more on education--but merely to raise taxes.
It is simply not the constitutional duty of the federal government to provide welfare checks for those who are impoverished (some, through no fault of their own; others--well, not so much). Moreover, as others have previously noted, this is probably the only country in the world in which "poor" people typically own one or more flat-screen TVs, a cell phone, and other luxuries.
Unopposed Market forces, that always exert a downward presssure on compensation, have already created an economy where 40% of all workers will never be able to afford to live based exclusively on Market driven compensation. That percentage is growing and will continue to grow based upon an unopposed Market.
At what point will you say that the Market needs to be addressed? We're currently at well over 40% living in relative or absolute poverty. Mitt Romney, in 2012, correctly noted that 47% of working American households don't pay federal taxes (or actually have a negative income tax liability) because they don't have enough income to pay federal taxes. Does that percentage need to rise to 50%, 60% 80% or 95% before you're willing to say something needs to be done to balance the downward pressure on compensation by the "Market" that you appear to worship? Many conservatives complain about the tax burden of the top 1% but what happens when only the top 1% have enough income to be able to afford to pay taxes? Will you think it's about time to address Market compensation then?
You rally to the defense of a company that might need to depend upon government contracts but don't rally to the need of the worker that is forced to accept employment that doesn't provide them with enough compensation to live on. We don't expect the business to operate at a loss so why do you expect a person to operate at a loss?
There has to be a balance where the enterprise can operate at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures) and where the employee can operate at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures). That WIN-WIN situation must exist for the ecomony to benefit the people of the nation and it can exist.
My solution is not to simply "throw more money" at a problem but instead is to reduce or eliminate the problem.
If we have a Win-Win situation where the Enterprise and the Employee are both operating at a profit (i.e. have more income than expenditures) because we eliminate the necessity for welfare assistance for working Americans. If we pragmatically privatize Social Security and Medicare so that the individual generates personal assets during their working career they will have income from their financial assets at retirement they don't need government retirement or medical welfare assistance currenlty being provided for by Social Security and Medicare. If employers provide health insurance for their employees we don't need Obamacare for working employees. If we only worry about defending the Unites States from invasion/attack we don't need 12 carrier groups and could easily defend the United States with four carrier groups. If we relied on the Army Reserves as opposed to the Regular Army (as envisioned by the founders that advocated reliance on "militias" as opposed to a "standing army" in the Constitution) we could easily reduce the cost of the US Army by 50% without losing any capacity to defend the United States.
None of these "cost savings" are achieved by "spending cuts" but instead are addressed by focusing on the cause of the spending that reduces the spending. By reducing the necessity for the spending the budget automatically shrinks and that's what I advocate. Simply "cutting the spending" means the problems creating the necessity for the spending are not being addressed and that's irresponsible. Reducing the "necessity" reduces the spending without "budget cutting" because the reasons for the spending simply disappear. Reducing poverty reduces welfare spending and reducing military interventionism in the affairs of other countries reduces military spending and both of those reduce the size and cost of government.
It's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to wage foreign wars when the US has not been attacked or invaded. It's not the Constitutional reponsibility of the federal government to control immigration. It's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to control what the person consumes such as plants like marijuana or opium from the poppy plant.
As you also note it's not the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government to provide welfare to the people (but it is to provide for the welfare of the states) because that's a state Constitutional responsibility.
So how do we require the states to fulfill their Constitutional responsibility to provide for the welfare of the people?
Under Obamacare Medicaid was expanded and the Federal government funded that expansion (i.e. providing for the welfare of the states) but many states refused to provide for the "welfare of the people" by accepting the funding for the expansion.
Under our Federalist from of government there are divided roles and responsibilities between the federal and state governments but the States have consistantly failed in their designated roles and responsibilities to the people. What is your proposal to fix that?
I certainly do not propose more federal intervention, as the federal government has been generally far inferior to state governments, as concerning the proper enforcement of the law. (The single exception to this was, of course, as regarding the civil-rights laws in the 1960s.) Whether you wish to admit it or not, you have effectively argued in favor of "living-wage" doctrine. (Moreover, one may be entitled to wonder just exactly how that figure of "40%" was derived. Did it, for instance, include those who are adolescents or twentysomethings, and/or who are not their families' chief breadwinners?) You appear to believe that business owners are (or, at least, should be) motivated by altruism; and that they should, therefore, cut their profits to the bone, in order to supply their employees with greater compensation. I do not look at the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or even the Vietnam War--as my model. Rather, I go back to WWII--the last declared war--and believe that the US should have the practical ability to fight a war on two separate fronts, at anytime; and to do so effectively. (Nor do I believe that the military should be limited, in its duties, to protecting against an "invasion" of our shores. We should be able and willing to defeat, militarily, any country that has attacked our national interests; say, by impeding trade, by turning back our ships in international waters.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2015 11:16:02 GMT
I certainly do not propose more federal intervention, as the federal government has been generally far inferior to state governments, as concerning the proper enforcement of the law. (The single exception to this was, of course, as regarding the civil-rights laws in the 1960s.) Whether you wish to admit it or not, you have effectively argued in favor of "living-wage" doctrine. (Moreover, one may be entitled to wonder just exactly how that figure of "40%" was derived. Did it, for instance, include those who are adolescents or twentysomethings, and/or who are not their families' chief breadwinners?) You appear to believe that business owners are (or, at least, should be) motivated by altruism; and that they should, therefore, cut their profits to the bone, in order to supply their employees with greater compensation. I do not look at the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or even the Vietnam War--as my model. Rather, I go back to WWII--the last declared war--and believe that the US should have the practical ability to fight a war on two separate fronts, at anytime; and to do so effectively. (Nor do I believe that the military should be limited, in its duties, to protecting against an "invasion" of our shores. We should be able and willing to defeat, militarily, any country that has attacked our national interests; say, by impeding trade, by turning back our ships in international waters.)
I would agree with you that the states are generally more effective in proper enforcement of the law but there are two fundamental problems.
1) The states often don't have the laws on the books to enforce or the laws are grossly inadequate.
For example we have an enviromental problem of epic proportions in North Carolina because the state environmental laws did not prevent toxic pollution of the water by Duke Energy and that problem is massive in scope.
2) The states often have nefarious laws such as the Jim Crow laws that the federal civil rights movement of the 1960's addressed.
We apparently agree that the federal government did have a role and responsibility to intervene in the issue of civil rights but sadly government has abandoned that role to a large degree. In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court struck down Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act stating that the criteria was 40 years old, out of date, and needed Congressional action to update it but Congress has failed to act effectively nullifying the Voting Rights Act. What was gained in 1965 was lost in 2013 when Congress failed to act.
I actually believe that a "living wage" should not be motivated based upon altruism by enterprise but instead should be motivated based upon the self-interests of the enterprise.
We can use a retail giant like Walmart as an example. Walmart depends upon average workers having the disposable income to purchase it's products so it is illogical for Walmart to pay less than a liveable wage because it's limiting the ability of it's own workers to shop at Walmart. The opposite example was Henry Ford that doubled the wages for his employees so that they could afford the automobiles being produced by Ford.
We need to also address the belief that this increase in compensation drives higher prices and lower profits is fundamentally a myth. Once agian, using Henry Ford as an example, after doubling wages he modified his business plan resulting in reducing prices by about 50% while also increasing the profits of the Ford Motor Company.
We can also look at what would happen with Walmart if all workers received a "liveable wage" in the community. Sales at Walmart would soar because people would have far more disposable income to spend at Walmart and other retail outlets. Increase sales would more than offset the costs of higher compensation and no price increases would be necessary. In fact the price of goods and services could actually go down in many cases because of increased sales. Historically we look back at the growth of the middle class in the 1950's and 1960's the actual cost of many commodities, when inflation is accounted, for were actually going down, the workers were earning more, and enterprise was booming.
Failure for the enterprise to ensure a "liveable wage" actually harms the enterprise and reduces profits because it reduces disposable income in the community. "Lower personal income = Less purchasing = Lower sales = Lower profits"
With the historic expansion of the US from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast I agree that the US must have the capability to defend itself on two fronts as demonstrated by WW II. Like the founders though I also believe this ability should not rest with a standing army but instead by a "reserve" military. When founded the US relied on state militias and that is not pragmatically possible today but reliance on the Army (Air Force, Marine, and Navy) Reserves is pragmatically possible.
Yes, the US Navy does have a Constitutional responsibility to defend our international interests by providing protection to US commercial shipping on the high seas. Last week, in response to Iran seizing a Marshall Islands flagged commercial vessel (apparently over a lawsuit) in the Straits of Hormuz, the US Navy was ordered to escort all US flagged commercial vessels through the Straits. It was the correct order to give based upon the defense of our national interests on the high seas under the US Constitution. This is one of those cases where all Americans should agree that the "president got it right" while there are other actions by the president that we can disagree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2015 20:32:39 GMT
I certainly do not propose more federal intervention, as the federal government has been generally far inferior to state governments, as concerning the proper enforcement of the law. (The single exception to this was, of course, as regarding the civil-rights laws in the 1960s.) Whether you wish to admit it or not, you have effectively argued in favor of "living-wage" doctrine. (Moreover, one may be entitled to wonder just exactly how that figure of "40%" was derived. Did it, for instance, include those who are adolescents or twentysomethings, and/or who are not their families' chief breadwinners?) You appear to believe that business owners are (or, at least, should be) motivated by altruism; and that they should, therefore, cut their profits to the bone, in order to supply their employees with greater compensation. I do not look at the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or even the Vietnam War--as my model. Rather, I go back to WWII--the last declared war--and believe that the US should have the practical ability to fight a war on two separate fronts, at anytime; and to do so effectively. (Nor do I believe that the military should be limited, in its duties, to protecting against an "invasion" of our shores. We should be able and willing to defeat, militarily, any country that has attacked our national interests; say, by impeding trade, by turning back our ships in international waters.)
I would agree with you that the states are generally more effective in proper enforcement of the law but there are two fundamental problems.
1) The states often don't have the laws on the books to enforce or the laws are grossly inadequate.
For example we have an enviromental problem of epic proportions in North Carolina because the state environmental laws did not prevent toxic pollution of the water by Duke Energy and that problem is massive in scope.
2) The states often have nefarious laws such as the Jim Crow laws that the federal civil rights movement of the 1960's addressed.
We apparently agree that the federal government did have a role and responsibility to intervene in the issue of civil rights but sadly government has abandoned that role to a large degree. In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court struck down Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act stating that the criteria was 40 years old, out of date, and needed Congressional action to update it but Congress has failed to act effectively nullifying the Voting Rights Act. What was gained in 1965 was lost in 2013 when Congress failed to act.
I actually believe that a "living wage" should not be motivated based upon altruism by enterprise but instead should be motivated based upon the self-interests of the enterprise.
We can use a retail giant like Walmart as an example. Walmart depends upon average workers having the disposable income to purchase it's products so it is illogical for Walmart to pay less than a liveable wage because it's limiting the ability of it's own workers to shop at Walmart. The opposite example was Henry Ford that doubled the wages for his employees so that they could afford the automobiles being produced by Ford.
We need to also address the belief that this increase in compensation drives higher prices and lower profits is fundamentally a myth. Once agian, using Henry Ford as an example, after doubling wages he modified his business plan resulting in reducing prices by about 50% while also increasing the profits of the Ford Motor Company.
We can also look at what would happen with Walmart if all workers received a "liveable wage" in the community. Sales at Walmart would soar because people would have far more disposable income to spend at Walmart and other retail outlets. Increase sales would more than offset the costs of higher compensation and no price increases would be necessary. In fact the price of goods and services could actually go down in many cases because of increased sales. Historically we look back at the growth of the middle class in the 1950's and 1960's the actual cost of many commodities, when inflation is accounted, for were actually going down, the workers were earning more, and enterprise was booming.
Failure for the enterprise to ensure a "liveable wage" actually harms the enterprise and reduces profits because it reduces disposable income in the community. "Lower personal income = Less purchasing = Lower sales = Lower profits"
With the historic expansion of the US from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast I agree that the US must have the capability to defend itself on two fronts as demonstrated by WW II. Like the founders though I also believe this ability should not rest with a standing army but instead by a "reserve" military. When founded the US relied on state militias and that is not pragmatically possible today but reliance on the Army (Air Force, Marine, and Navy) Reserves is pragmatically possible.
Yes, the US Navy does have a Constitutional responsibility to defend our international interests by providing protection to US commercial shipping on the high seas. Last week, in response to Iran seizing a Marshall Islands flagged commercial vessel (apparently over a lawsuit) in the Straits of Hormuz, the US Navy was ordered to escort all US flagged commercial vessels through the Straits. It was the correct order to give based upon the defense of our national interests on the high seas under the US Constitution. This is one of those cases where all Americans should agree that the "president got it right" while there are other actions by the president that we can disagree with.
I totally agree with the US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
How do you know that most Walmart employees are the chief breadwinners of their respective families? Or that they intend to work in this (or a similar) job for the rest of their lives? And, whereas you believe that the managers at Walmart really do not know what is in their own best interest, you appear to believe that you do know; and that government should agree with you, and enforce this "knowledge" upon Walmart. (I think that is what is commonly known as elitism.) Oh, yes: For the record, Walmart is now starting--starting!--its employees at $9.00 per hour; which is significantly higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. And by February 2016--just nine months from now--it will increase to $10.00 per hour to start. Oh, you have referred to one specific incident in the Straits of Hormuz. However, not all such incidents have gone smoothly. As regarding one just the other day, The Washington Free Beacon wrote the following: Here is the link to the entire article: freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iranian-navy-chases-after-u-s-warships/ |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2015 13:37:20 GMT
I totally agree with the US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
How do you know that most Walmart employees are the chief breadwinners of their respective families? Or that they intend to work in this (or a similar) job for the rest of their lives? And, whereas you believe that the managers at Walmart really do not know what is in their own best interest, you appear to believe that you do know; and that government should agree with you, and enforce this "knowledge" upon Walmart. (I think that is what is commonly known as elitism.) Oh, yes: For the record, Walmart is now starting--starting!--its employees at $9.00 per hour; which is significantly higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. And by February 2016--just nine months from now--it will increase to $10.00 per hour to start. Oh, you have referred to one specific incident in the Straits of Hormuz. However, not all such incidents have gone smoothly. As regarding one just the other day, The Washington Free Beacon wrote the following: Here is the link to the entire article: freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iranian-navy-chases-after-u-s-warships/
The question is whether you agree with all of Shelby County v Holder? In that decision the Supreme Court mandated a responsibility to Congress to update the data being used for Section 4(b) because it was out-of-date. From my perspective the entire Congress should be held in contempt of court and jailed if they continue to refuse to update the data used in Section 4(b). Let them out of jail just long enough to address the basic necessities of government but until the update the Voting Rights Act based upon current data they should spend all of their spare time in jail.
Walmart increasing the starting wage to $9/hr or $10/hr still results in the necessity for government to fund twice that much in welfare benefits. With myopic vision you see only the $9 or $10 from Walmart while with a much broader vision I'm seeing the additional $10 or more in government welfare assistance that is necessary for the Walmart worker to survive.
The entire Iranian Navy is nothing more than a flea on the dog when compared to just the single US Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf. It doesn't represent a military threat and is more of a navigational threat similar to floating debris on the sea. The greatest problem the Iranian Navy represents is that the US might accidently ram an Iranian ship and sink it because it got in the way. The Iranians are NOT going to attack a US warship. They might be stupid but they're not that stupid. The claim that the US Navy would flee after a warning from Iran had me ROFLMAO. It would take a really stupid person to believe that one.
Of the top 1,000 things Americans need to be concerned with the Iranian Navy isn't one of them. It ranks somewhere with the concerns of the Texas governor that roughly 1,000 member of the US military training in Texas (without bullets) are going to attempt to take-over Texas (that's already a part of the United States).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2015 21:26:14 GMT
I totally agree with the US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
How do you know that most Walmart employees are the chief breadwinners of their respective families? Or that they intend to work in this (or a similar) job for the rest of their lives? And, whereas you believe that the managers at Walmart really do not know what is in their own best interest, you appear to believe that you do know; and that government should agree with you, and enforce this "knowledge" upon Walmart. (I think that is what is commonly known as elitism.) Oh, yes: For the record, Walmart is now starting--starting!--its employees at $9.00 per hour; which is significantly higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. And by February 2016--just nine months from now--it will increase to $10.00 per hour to start. Oh, you have referred to one specific incident in the Straits of Hormuz. However, not all such incidents have gone smoothly. As regarding one just the other day, The Washington Free Beacon wrote the following: Here is the link to the entire article: freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iranian-navy-chases-after-u-s-warships/
The question is whether you agree with all of Shelby County v Holder? In that decision the Supreme Court mandated a responsibility to Congress to update the data being used for Section 4(b) because it was out-of-date. From my perspective the entire Congress should be held in contempt of court and jailed if they continue to refuse to update the data used in Section 4(b). Let them out of jail just long enough to address the basic necessities of government but until the update the Voting Rights Act based upon current data they should spend all of their spare time in jail.
Walmart increasing the starting wage to $9/hr or $10/hr still results in the necessity for government to fund twice that much in welfare benefits. With myopic vision you see only the $9 or $10 from Walmart while with a much broader vision I'm seeing the additional $10 or more in government welfare assistance that is necessary for the Walmart worker to survive.
The entire Iranian Navy is nothing more than a flea on the dog when compared to just the single US Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf. It doesn't represent a military threat and is more of a navigational threat similar to floating debris on the sea. The greatest problem the Iranian Navy represents is that the US might accidently ram an Iranian ship and sink it because it got in the way. The Iranians are NOT going to attack a US warship. They might be stupid but they're not that stupid. The claim that the US Navy would flee after a warning from Iran had me ROFLMAO. It would take a really stupid person to believe that one.
Of the top 1,000 things Americans need to be concerned with the Iranian Navy isn't one of them. It ranks somewhere with the concerns of the Texas governor that roughly 1,000 member of the US military training in Texas (without bullets) are going to attempt to take-over Texas (that's already a part of the United States).
Would you care to quote that portion of Shelby County v. Holder that has been ignored, in your opinion? (By the way--for what it is worth--I have never agreed with the seminal Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, that effectively gave the High Court the power to determine just what the law is. In short, I do not believe that the US Supreme Court should trump the Legislative Branch of government--in any way, whatsoever.) Please note that the $9.00 or $10.00 per hour is merely a starting wage; most Walmart employees, presumably, earn more than that. (Note: The most I ever earned was a flat $12.00 per hour--and with a lot more undertime than overtime. I probably averaged around 30 hours per week at the place I last worked, for the final 16 years of my working life. And I never had government assistance, of any sort.) I think you may be confusing what the US Navy could do (theoretically) with what it is actually willing to do, under our Appeaser-in-Chief... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 12, 2015 15:45:53 GMT
Would you care to quote that portion of Shelby County v. Holder that has been ignored, in your opinion? (By the way--for what it is worth--I have never agreed with the seminal Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, that effectively gave the High Court the power to determine just what the law is. In short, I do not believe that the US Supreme Court should trump the Legislative Branch of government--in any way, whatsoever.) Please note that the $9.00 or $10.00 per hour is merely a starting wage; most Walmart employees, presumably, earn more than that. (Note: The most I ever earned was a flat $12.00 per hour--and with a lot more undertime than overtime. I probably averaged around 30 hours per week at the place I last worked, for the final 16 years of my working life. And I never had government assistance, of any sort.) I think you may be confusing what the US Navy could do (theoretically) with what it is actually willing to do, under our Appeaser-in-Chief...
The US Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act for one reason and one reason alone.
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96
www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-on-shelby-county-v-holder-in-plain-english/
Clearly for the Voting Rights Act to remain effective it requires Congressional action to revise the "coverage formula" to reflect current conditions were gerrymandering and/or voting laws disenfranchise minority voters.
The Supreme Court doesn't determine what the law is but instead interpretes the law in resolving disputes that arise under the US Constitution in compliance with it's delegated role under the US Constitution. Neither the Congress or the Executive Branch have the authority to resolve disputes under the Constitution nor do they have the power to interprete the laws when disputes arise.
Excluding very limited number of management employees at the top of the payscale at Walmart none of them earn a "liveable wage" according to the following source:
www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores%2c_Inc/Hourly_Rate/by_Job
No commander of a US warship is going to allow a foreign nation to attack it without responding immediately. This response by the commanding officer is not subject to political review.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2015 0:31:43 GMT
Would you care to quote that portion of Shelby County v. Holder that has been ignored, in your opinion? (By the way--for what it is worth--I have never agreed with the seminal Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, that effectively gave the High Court the power to determine just what the law is. In short, I do not believe that the US Supreme Court should trump the Legislative Branch of government--in any way, whatsoever.) Please note that the $9.00 or $10.00 per hour is merely a starting wage; most Walmart employees, presumably, earn more than that. (Note: The most I ever earned was a flat $12.00 per hour--and with a lot more undertime than overtime. I probably averaged around 30 hours per week at the place I last worked, for the final 16 years of my working life. And I never had government assistance, of any sort.) I think you may be confusing what the US Navy could do (theoretically) with what it is actually willing to do, under our Appeaser-in-Chief...
The US Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act for one reason and one reason alone.
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96
www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-on-shelby-county-v-holder-in-plain-english/
Clearly for the Voting Rights Act to remain effective it requires Congressional action to revise the "coverage formula" to reflect current conditions were gerrymandering and/or voting laws disenfranchise minority voters.
The Supreme Court doesn't determine what the law is but instead interpretes the law in resolving disputes that arise under the US Constitution in compliance with it's delegated role under the US Constitution. Neither the Congress or the Executive Branch have the authority to resolve disputes under the Constitution nor do they have the power to interprete the laws when disputes arise.
Excluding very limited number of management employees at the top of the payscale at Walmart none of them earn a "liveable wage" according to the following source:
www.payscale.com/research/US/Emplo
By the way, that 30 hours per week that I averaged--at a top rate of $12.00 per hour--yer=Wal-Mart_Stores%2c_Inc/Hourly_Rate/by_Job
No commander of a US warship is going to allow a foreign nation to attack it without responding immediately. This response by the commanding officer is not subject to political review.
Half a century ago, it was clear that many Southern locales--in fact, most--disenfranchised black Americans. But that is no linger the case. And your concern that black Americans are (supposedly) disenfranchised, nowadays, by "gerrymandering" (as if Republicans were any more likely to do this than Democrats are) and current "voting laws"--with no proof--is just simply preposterous! In pure theory, the SCOTUS "interpretes" [sic] the law. But in actual practice, it tends to create new law. (This is because of the "expansive" view, adhered to by some, to which you alluded in an earlier post.) By the way, that 30 hours per week that I averaged--at a top rate of $12.00 per hour--comes to just $360.00 per week. And that is before taxes and other deductions. And the job most typical at Walmart pays $9.00 per hour to start--or the same $360.00 per week that I was making, for 40 hours at Walmart. (It pays up to $15.95 per hour--or $638.00 per week, gross, for 40 hours.) And you have failed to address a (very important!) question that I posed earlier, so I will try again: Why would you suppose that most Walmart employees are either (1) their families' chief breadwinners); or (2) inclined to work in this job, or a similar job, for the rest of their lives?
I am really hoping that you will answer this, this time... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 15, 2015 14:09:47 GMT
Half a century ago, it was clear that many Southern locales--in fact, most--disenfranchised black Americans. But that is no linger the case. And your concern that black Americans are (supposedly) disenfranchised, nowadays, by "gerrymandering" (as if Republicans were any more likely to do this than Democrats are) and current "voting laws"--with no proof--is just simply preposterous! In pure theory, the SCOTUS "interpretes" [sic] the law. But in actual practice, it tends to create new law. (This is because of the "expansive" view, adhered to by some, to which you alluded in an earlier post.) By the way, that 30 hours per week that I averaged--at a top rate of $12.00 per hour--comes to just $360.00 per week. And that is before taxes and other deductions. And the job most typical at Walmart pays $9.00 per hour to start--or the same $360.00 per week that I was making, for 40 hours at Walmart. (It pays up to $15.95 per hour--or $638.00 per week, gross, for 40 hours.) And you have failed to address a (very important!) question that I posed earlier, so I will try again: Why would you suppose that most Walmart employees are either (1) their families' chief breadwinners); or (2) inclined to work in this job, or a similar job, for the rest of their lives?
I am really hoping that you will answer this, this time...
When some of those responsible for the voting laws literally come out and state that they were targeting disenfranchisement based upon race we have to assume that this is a probably cause behind the same laws in other states.
This is especially true if there is no rational reason for the law such as voter ID laws that only address voter impersonation at the polls. To my knowledge not a single election in history has ever been disputed based upon voter impersonation at the polls and it's a non-existant problem. Voter impersonation at the polls hasn't even been cited as a contributing problem in a disputed election result. If the problem doesn't exist then there is no justification for the law (unless it's based upon the known fact that 25% of blacks don't have the proper ID to vote where these laws exist which was the reason cited by some of those responsible for the voting law changes).
We haven't even had a disputed election (to my knowledge) where non-citizens were cited as a cause behind an improper election result.
I'm opposed to all gerrymandering regardless of what political party is engaged in the practice. At the macro-level it's very easy to determine if it's happening based upon the "vote v results" for the House of Representatives that was designed to be representative of the People of the United States. While there is obviously a small gray area where a close popular vote could result in disproportionate representation when there is a significant difference between the "vote v results" it can only be explained based upon gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Gerrymandering is unquestionably occurring in some states like Texas where there is disproportionate "vote v results" in their Congressional representation that can only occur because of gerrymandering.
Returning to Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court was explicit in establishing that repeatedly using 40 year old data was unconstitutional and that the data needed to be updated to today's criteria. That is what Congress has failed to do. Re-imposition of discriminatory laws is going on (just like what happened to Central High School that went from being a desegregated school to a segregated school within just four years of the "desegregation order" being lifted by the federal court) and that is what Congress needs to address but hasn't. We need new criteria for Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to ensure against discriminatory voting laws.
The powers of the Supreme Court are fundamentally limited to nullification of law. It has no powers whatsoever to create law although it does have a Constitutional responsibility of "redress" where the Rights of the Person have been violated under the Constitution. Of note included in it's power of nullification it can prevent future laws that would also violate the Constitution by establishing precedent. Precedent is not law but instead often prevents law. For example Roe v Wade did not create any laws but did strike down (nullify) many abortion laws and also established the Constitutional precedent that would prevent future abortion laws. Preventing a law is not the same as creating a law.
I knew a woman in the 1970's that never even had a job and she got along very well. She didn't need to work for a living because her parents were very wealthy.
Of course there is no way for me to know if the Walmart worker is the "primary" income earner but I'd put long odds on the fact that their income is vital in supporting the expenditures of the household. We can also note that with the average hourly wage of only $10.55/hr in America whether they work for Walmart or another company is fundamentally irrelevant because virtually no one can actually live on $10.55/hr without either independent wealth (e.g. they own a home outright without a mortgage) or external/supplemental financial assistance based upon the minimum cost of living.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 17, 2015 20:34:09 GMT
Half a century ago, it was clear that many Southern locales--in fact, most--disenfranchised black Americans. But that is no linger the case. And your concern that black Americans are (supposedly) disenfranchised, nowadays, by "gerrymandering" (as if Republicans were any more likely to do this than Democrats are) and current "voting laws"--with no proof--is just simply preposterous! In pure theory, the SCOTUS "interpretes" [sic] the law. But in actual practice, it tends to create new law. (This is because of the "expansive" view, adhered to by some, to which you alluded in an earlier post.) By the way, that 30 hours per week that I averaged--at a top rate of $12.00 per hour--comes to just $360.00 per week. And that is before taxes and other deductions. And the job most typical at Walmart pays $9.00 per hour to start--or the same $360.00 per week that I was making, for 40 hours at Walmart. (It pays up to $15.95 per hour--or $638.00 per week, gross, for 40 hours.) And you have failed to address a (very important!) question that I posed earlier, so I will try again: Why would you suppose that most Walmart employees are either (1) their families' chief breadwinners); or (2) inclined to work in this job, or a similar job, for the rest of their lives?
I am really hoping that you will answer this, this time...
When some of those responsible for the voting laws literally come out and state that they were targeting disenfranchisement based upon race we have to assume that this is a probably cause behind the same laws in other states.
This is especially true if there is no rational reason for the law such as voter ID laws that only address voter impersonation at the polls. To my knowledge not a single election in history has ever been disputed based upon voter impersonation at the polls and it's a non-existant problem. Voter impersonation at the polls hasn't even been cited as a contributing problem in a disputed election result. If the problem doesn't exist then there is no justification for the law (unless it's based upon the known fact that 25% of blacks don't have the proper ID to vote where these laws exist which was the reason cited by some of those responsible for the voting law changes).
We haven't even had a disputed election (to my knowledge) where non-citizens were cited as a cause behind an improper election result.
I'm opposed to all gerrymandering regardless of what political party is engaged in the practice. At the macro-level it's very easy to determine if it's happening based upon the "vote v results" for the House of Representatives that was designed to be representative of the People of the United States. While there is obviously a small gray area where a close popular vote could result in disproportionate representation when there is a significant difference between the "vote v results" it can only be explained based upon gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Gerrymandering is unquestionably occurring in some states like Texas where there is disproportionate "vote v results" in their Congressional representation that can only occur because of gerrymandering.
Returning to Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court was explicit in establishing that repeatedly using 40 year old data was unconstitutional and that the data needed to be updated to today's criteria. That is what Congress has failed to do. Re-imposition of discriminatory laws is going on (just like what happened to Central High School that went from being a desegregated school to a segregated school within just four years of the "desegregation order" being lifted by the federal court) and that is what Congress needs to address but hasn't. We need new criteria for Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to ensure against discriminatory voting laws.
The powers of the Supreme Court are fundamentally limited to nullification of law. It has no powers whatsoever to create law although it does have a Constitutional responsibility of "redress" where the Rights of the Person have been violated under the Constitution. Of note included in it's power of nullification it can prevent future laws that would also violate the Constitution by establishing precedent. Precedent is not law but instead often prevents law. For example Roe v Wade did not create any laws but did strike down (nullify) many abortion laws and also established the Constitutional precedent that would prevent future abortion laws. Preventing a law is not the same as creating a law.
I knew a woman in the 1970's that never even had a job and she got along very well. She didn't need to work for a living because her parents were very wealthy.
Of course there is no way for me to know if the Walmart worker is the "primary" income earner but I'd put long odds on the fact that their income is vital in supporting the expenditures of the household. We can also note that with the average hourly wage of only $10.55/hr in America whether they work for Walmart or another company is fundamentally irrelevant because virtually no one can actually live on $10.55/hr without either independent wealth (e.g. they own a home outright without a mortgage) or external/supplemental financial assistance based upon the minimum cost of living.
Thank you for (finally) answering my question. To say merely that these workers' incomes are "vital" is to miss the point, however. If the other spouse is the chief breadwinner, the $10.55 an hour (which you say is the average nationally) may very well be just enough of a supplement--even after deductions--to make ends meet. Why would you suppose otherwise? The "some" who have (you say) admitted to intending to disenfranchise some people "based upon race" is not really very convincing. If a couple of people claim that this is the case, you seem eager to jump to the (pre-conceived) conclusion that this is the norm. You are certainly correct that the SCOTUS "has no powers whatsoever to create law." At least, not in theory. Yet it often does precisely that. And the landmark 1973 case that you have mentioned, Roe v. Wade, is a very good example of this, I believe. (It was undergirded by the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the "emanations" from a "penumbra" were critical to the reasoning.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 18, 2015 14:46:33 GMT
Thank you for (finally) answering my question. To say merely that these workers' incomes are "vital" is to miss the point, however. If the other spouse is the chief breadwinner, the $10.55 an hour (which you say is the average nationally) may very well be just enough of a supplement--even after deductions--to make ends meet. Why would you suppose otherwise? The "some" who have (you say) admitted to intending to disenfranchise some people "based upon race" is not really very convincing. If a couple of people claim that this is the case, you seem eager to jump to the (pre-conceived) conclusion that this is the norm. You are certainly correct that the SCOTUS "has no powers whatsoever to create law." At least, not in theory. Yet it often does precisely that. And the landmark 1973 case that you have mentioned, Roe v. Wade, is a very good example of this, I believe. (It was undergirded by the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the "emanations" from a "penumbra" were critical to the reasoning.)
I am a pragmatist when it comes to addressing many issues including employee compensation. An employer cannot base their compensation scale on the variables of the household composition. As MIT, that cannot be claimed to be either conservative or liberal, found in creating a "Living Wage Calculator" the minimum wage requirements vary greatly based upon the variables of household composition. An employer has to address compensation from a "reasonable and pragmatic" standpoint in order to create the payscale for the business plan. On another forum I was asked, as an employer, what base wage (and compensation) package would I establish for my business plan (which I've already done but arrived at it differently than what I use here).
First I went the the MIT calculator that breaks down a "Living Wage" based upon State and County and I looked up Yavapai County, Arizona where I will be moving next month (that was about as random as I could make my selection).
Homepage: livingwage.mit.edu/
Yavapai County, Arizona results: livingwage.mit.edu/counties/04025
If you review the results you'll find that they vary greatly based upon the household composition with the minimum necessary wage being anywhere from $10.16/hr for a fulltime single person to a high of $35.36/hr for a single adult with three children (not uncommon today). As the "business owner" creating a payscale I need to be pragmatic in establishing the "starting wage" and it can't be a variable wage based upon household composition. I'm rather simplistic in addressing this so I just took the low and the high and split the difference as a starting point. That resulted in a $22.76/hr wage but then I looked at the key variables and addressed them as a "benefit" as opposed to a "wage" for the employee. The two key variables I focused in on were "Medical" costs and "Child Care" costs. I could reduce the starting wage if I addressed "Medical" provided group health insurance and I could also reduce the impact of "Child Care" if I subsidized child care for those with children because only part of my employees statistically will have children. So I decided to include a company subsidy for the employees to address those costs and I lowered the starting wage to $20/hr but I also included provisions in the business plan were a new hire could, based upon training and performance, eventually earn over the $35/hr rate that would ensure a "liveable wage" to virtually any employee.
Of course as the business owner it's also my responsibility to ensure that the tasks I assign to the employee, based upon the training I provide, will result in that employee generating more than enough revenue to fund the costs of the compensation package. That's my job and if I do that then I've fulfilled my responsibility as an employer. The employee's responsibility is to learn how to do what needs to be done based upon my training program and then to perform the tasks I've assigned to them. Both the employer and the employee have responsibilities to the enterprise and we both need to fulfill our responsibilities for the enterprise to succeed.
What I've found is that virtually all employees fulfill their responsibilities by learning how to do the work and performing the tasks assigned to them while many owners fail to ensure that the tasks they assign to the employee(s) generate enough revenue to ensure that the compensation is enough for the employee to live on. In short many owners of enterprise fail in their responsibilities to the enterprise to ensure adequate compensation for their employees. I'm not one to make excuses for the owners of enterprise that fail in such a basic responsibility.
Government and political parties should be concerned about the enfranchisement of the voters and not disenfranchisement voters. A party should win an election by convincing people to vote for their political agenda as opposed to trying to suppress the vote for the opposing party. "Get Out The Vote" should be the mantra and not "Suppress The Vote" which is what the Republican Party is currently engaged in when it comes to the voting laws.
Much of this is unquestionably based upon the changing demographics where "white Americans" that have been the core base of the Republican Party is diminishing. Blacks and Hispanics that vote for Democrats by over 90% and about 75% respectively are the obvious targets for disenfranchisement for Republicans that would prefer that they don't vote and will go as far as Constitutionally possible to ensure that as few as possible vote.
I can understand and support efforts to ensure the integrity of elections. If there's a problem identified then reasonable measures should be taken to ensure that the problem doesn't adversely effect an election result. It makes no sense to me to impose restrictions on voting that will reduce voting where no identified problem exists.
For example there isn't a single recorded case of voter impersonation at the polls in Wisconsin so why does Wisconsin need a Voter ID Law that instantly disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of registered voters, predominately poor and minority voters, that didn't have the approved form of government issued ID? Why would anyone disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of registered voters when there's no evidence of any election result ever being compromised? The only logical argument is that the poor and minorities overwelmingly vote for Democrats in a Republican conrolled state. The law wasn't about protecting the intergity of the elections in Wisconsin because no problem existed related to the elections. The law was exclusively about disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities that would vote for Democrats as opposed to Republicans.
In Florida the Republican adminstration reduced early votng. There wasn't any election problem related to early voting but statistically blacks, that overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, were more likely to take advantage of the early voting provisions. Once again a problem related to the election was not behind the change in the law because no problem existed. The problem the Republicans was "blacks vote for Democrats" so how can this be reduced and cutting early voting back would result in a lower black turnout for the election. The change in the voting law was to disenfranchise a percentage of the black vote to win an election and that is a problem when it comes to the integrity of our election process.
The fact that there are Republicans that openly admitted that this was the purpose is actually surprising because rarely are politican honest about such matters. The evidence was clear without the admission.
Roe v Wade did not create any law either directly or indirectly. It struck down laws that limited/restricted abortion that violated the Constitutional Rights of the Woman. Roe v Wade was a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution but not for reasons that the social conservatives tend to believe. Under the US Constitution only the "Rights of the Person" are protected and "personhood" throughout history has always been established at birth. The fetus (pre-born) has no rights under the Constitution but in a very progressive interpretation the Supreme Court did establish limited rights for the fetus at natural viability based upon "potential personhood" that is not protected by the Constitution. Roe v Wade was a huge win for the "anti-abortionists" because without the "progressive" interpretation of "potential personhood" all laws limiting or restricting abortion would be unconstitutional today. A "conservative" interpetation would have struck down all abortion laws because only the woman is a person with protected Constitutional Rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 20, 2015 21:18:46 GMT
Thank you for (finally) answering my question. To say merely that these workers' incomes are "vital" is to miss the point, however. If the other spouse is the chief breadwinner, the $10.55 an hour (which you say is the average nationally) may very well be just enough of a supplement--even after deductions--to make ends meet. Why would you suppose otherwise? The "some" who have (you say) admitted to intending to disenfranchise some people "based upon race" is not really very convincing. If a couple of people claim that this is the case, you seem eager to jump to the (pre-conceived) conclusion that this is the norm. You are certainly correct that the SCOTUS "has no powers whatsoever to create law." At least, not in theory. Yet it often does precisely that. And the landmark 1973 case that you have mentioned, Roe v. Wade, is a very good example of this, I believe. (It was undergirded by the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the "emanations" from a "penumbra" were critical to the reasoning.)
I am a pragmatist when it comes to addressing many issues including employee compensation. An employer cannot base their compensation scale on the variables of the household composition. As MIT, that cannot be claimed to be either conservative or liberal, found in creating a "Living Wage Calculator" the minimum wage requirements vary greatly based upon the variables of household composition. An employer has to address compensation from a "reasonable and pragmatic" standpoint in order to create the payscale for the business plan. On another forum I was asked, as an employer, what base wage (and compensation) package would I establish for my business plan (which I've already done but arrived at it differently than what I use here).
First I went the the MIT calculator that breaks down a "Living Wage" based upon State and County and I looked up Yavapai County, Arizona where I will be moving next month (that was about as random as I could make my selection).
Homepage: livingwage.mit.edu/
Yavapai County, Arizona results: livingwage.mit.edu/counties/04025
If you review the results you'll find that they vary greatly based upon the household composition with the minimum necessary wage being anywhere from $10.16/hr for a fulltime single person to a high of $35.36/hr for a single adult with three children (not uncommon today). As the "business owner" creating a payscale I need to be pragmatic in establishing the "starting wage" and it can't be a variable wage based upon household composition. I'm rather simplistic in addressing this so I just took the low and the high and split the difference as a starting point. That resulted in a $22.76/hr wage but then I looked at the key variables and addressed them as a "benefit" as opposed to a "wage" for the employee. The two key variables I focused in on were "Medical" costs and "Child Care" costs. I could reduce the starting wage if I addressed "Medical" provided group health insurance and I could also reduce the impact of "Child Care" if I subsidized child care for those with children because only part of my employees statistically will have children. So I decided to include a company subsidy for the employees to address those costs and I lowered the starting wage to $20/hr but I also included provisions in the business plan were a new hire could, based upon training and performance, eventually earn over the $35/hr rate that would ensure a "liveable wage" to virtually any employee.
Of course as the business owner it's also my responsibility to ensure that the tasks I assign to the employee, based upon the training I provide, will result in that employee generating more than enough revenue to fund the costs of the compensation package. That's my job and if I do that then I've fulfilled my responsibility as an employer. The employee's responsibility is to learn how to do what needs to be done based upon my training program and then to perform the tasks I've assigned to them. Both the employer and the employee have responsibilities to the enterprise and we both need to fulfill our responsibilities for the enterprise to succeed.
What I've found is that virtually all employees fulfill their responsibilities by learning how to do the work and performing the tasks assigned to them while many owners fail to ensure that the tasks they assign to the employee(s) generate enough revenue to ensure that the compensation is enough for the employee to live on. In short many owners of enterprise fail in their responsibilities to the enterprise to ensure adequate compensation for their employees. I'm not one to make excuses for the owners of enterprise that fail in such a basic responsibility.
Government and political parties should be concerned about the enfranchisement of the voters and not disenfranchisement voters. A party should win an election by convincing people to vote for their political agenda as opposed to trying to suppress the vote for the opposing party. "Get Out The Vote" should be the mantra and not "Suppress The Vote" which is what the Republican Party is currently engaged in when it comes to the voting laws.
Much of this is unquestionably based upon the changing demographics where "white Americans" that have been the core base of the Republican Party is diminishing. Blacks and Hispanics that vote for Democrats by over 90% and about 75% respectively are the obvious targets for disenfranchisement for Republicans that would prefer that they don't vote and will go as far as Constitutionally possible to ensure that as few as possible vote.
I can understand and support efforts to ensure the integrity of elections. If there's a problem identified then reasonable measures should be taken to ensure that the problem doesn't adversely effect an election result. It makes no sense to me to impose restrictions on voting that will reduce voting where no identified problem exists.
For example there isn't a single recorded case of voter impersonation at the polls in Wisconsin so why does Wisconsin need a Voter ID Law that instantly disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of registered voters, predominately poor and minority voters, that didn't have the approved form of government issued ID? Why would anyone disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of registered voters when there's no evidence of any election result ever being compromised? The only logical argument is that the poor and minorities overwelmingly vote for Democrats in a Republican conrolled state. The law wasn't about protecting the intergity of the elections in Wisconsin because no problem existed related to the elections. The law was exclusively about disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities that would vote for Democrats as opposed to Republicans.
In Florida the Republican adminstration reduced early votng. There wasn't any election problem related to early voting but statistically blacks, that overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, were more likely to take advantage of the early voting provisions. Once again a problem related to the election was not behind the change in the law because no problem existed. The problem the Republicans was "blacks vote for Democrats" so how can this be reduced and cutting early voting back would result in a lower black turnout for the election. The change in the voting law was to disenfranchise a percentage of the black vote to win an election and that is a problem when it comes to the integrity of our election process.
The fact that there are Republicans that openly admitted that this was the purpose is actually surprising because rarely are politican honest about such matters. The evidence was clear without the admission.
Roe v Wade did not create any law either directly or indirectly. It struck down laws that limited/restricted abortion that violated the Constitutional Rights of the Woman. Roe v Wade was a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution but not for reasons that the social conservatives tend to believe. Under the US Constitution only the "Rights of the Person" are protected and "personhood" throughout history has always been established at birth. The fetus (pre-born) has no rights under the Constitution but in a very progressive interpretation the Supreme Court did establish limited rights for the fetus at natural viability based upon "potential personhood" that is not protected by the Constitution. Roe v Wade was a huge win for the "anti-abortionists" because without the "progressive" interpretation of "potential personhood" all laws limiting or restricting abortion would be unconstitutional today. A "conservative" interpetation would have struck down all abortion laws because only the woman is a person with protected Constitutional Rights.
I am seriously trying to imagine how you might suppose, in a capitalistic economy, that it is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure a particular degree of compensation for his (or her) employees. By the way, the $15.00 per hour minimum wage, for which some are pushing, strikes me as totally ludicrous! Yet you are not content with even that: You seem to prefer a $20.00 per hour wage (with the possibility of its becoming a $35.00 per hour wage). I favor government-issued IDs that are free. Why this should result in the immediate “disenfranchise[ment]” of large numbers of voters, I have no idea. To claim that a fetus is only a “potential” person may have once made some sense. But given our understanding nowadays—a fetus can even feel pain by no later than 20 weeks—it seems downright unenlightened to look upon a fetus as a mere blob of tissue. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 27, 2015 14:14:12 GMT
I am seriously trying to imagine how you might suppose, in a capitalistic economy, that it is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure a particular degree of compensation for his (or her) employees. By the way, the $15.00 per hour minimum wage, for which some are pushing, strikes me as totally ludicrous! Yet you are not content with even that: You seem to prefer a $20.00 per hour wage (with the possibility of its becoming a $35.00 per hour wage). I favor government-issued IDs that are free. Why this should result in the immediate “disenfranchise[ment]” of large numbers of voters, I have no idea. To claim that a fetus is only a “potential” person may have once made some sense. But given our understanding nowadays—a fetus can even feel pain by no later than 20 weeks—it seems downright unenlightened to look upon a fetus as a mere blob of tissue.
I claim it's the owner's responsibility because the owner controls the business plan that accounts for all expenditures and revenues. The employee's role is limited to preforming the tasks assigned by the employer and it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that the tasks assigned assigned to the employee result in the necessary revenue to the enterprise.
I know that any enterprise, if properly managed, can provide adequate compensation to the employee, including my $20-$35 per hour payscale, and still provide products/services at fair market value. What I refuse to accept is incompetent management that fails to do this. We expect the employee to do their job so why shouldn't we expect the owner/management to do their job?
In point of fact I accept the fact that prior legal precendent that established the fetus as a "potential person" is in need of change because of our expanding understanding. That still brings forward a paradox because no rights can exist for the fetus that violate the rights of the woman. The woman, for example, does not have any responsibility to involuntarily "feed or house" the fetus. The rights of one person cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. Because of the paradox it is a very complex issue because the woman has rights as a person even if we change legal precedent for the fetus by granting personhood (that can only be accomplished by a Constitutional Amendment in the United States). For example a fetus that is removed intact and without any harm from the woman's body has not had any of it's "rights" violated even if the fetus later dies of natural causes.
|
|
