Another Political Idea

[dairygirl4u2c]

ideas for holes to be poked.
repubicans like to say say minimum wage is junk and welfare is junk nd a sliding scale in taxes is junk: allowing the rich to be richer and the poor poorer. there are some problems i have with this very conservative ideal.
it's all about entitlement. what is everyone entitled to. whatever you work for, sure, to an extent. look at the indians. naturally, the indians should be able to roam free and grow things, but we with our artificial laws deprive them of God's bounty. i agree to an extent that God gives a certain amount that is inherently ours, and then some. the land you farm is yours and if you farm a lot it's yours. but with our technology, and fake laws, people start claiming and taking more. the indians can't farm and the poor can't take a basic share.
we've created an artificial society, but we should at least recognize it as such and allow people to have a basic amount. i don't claim to know what that is, but it should be something he can pull himself up from, not peanuts. "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" what if you have no bootstraps to pull yourself up from?
take the idea of a giant. he makes the masses fight for a good job. someone will be stuck at the bottom. does that mean they should have less than the minimum? sure evolution theory. but if they are willing to work 40 a week for a year they should at least get a minimum.
we could ensure that everyone got entitled an amount of land. but that would not be good as people would not like it, so monetary is an alternative. plus many people can't farm as our society is artifically not farming. so we have to recognize people are the consequence of our structure and switch from land thinking to other thinking.
i'm all about working your way up and people having more than others etc etc. there's gotta be a minium.
what's ironic is i'm more capitalist than socialist.

[Nathan]

It's like this: I am a firm believer in genuine charity. The government forcibly taking money out of the pockets of the hard-working citizens -- which is what welfare, universal heathcare, etc., are -- is not charity.

We should inspire everyone, through Christ, to give and give much to the less fortunate. But we should never make them give what is theirs [i]forcibly[/i], which is what socialism is. It leaves the "free" citizen with no choice in the matter. Socialist economics is a false, cheap form of charity.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i agree it's not charity, and i wouldn't even claim that it should be characterized as such so much. it's "justice".
i agree you're forcibly taking what's anothers, but you're also forcibly preventing people with laws and technology acccess to God's bounty. you may say... well they have that right, first in line etc. but i don't think they do. i think when it comes down to it, others have a right to take what you're using in excess. if we prevent them, we should make up for it in our laws. like i won't call that charity giving to them, i also wouldn't call it stealing from the other person.
if a rich man were to be in primitive earth and there was a farm of people, and the giant and the means to take and own everything, he'd argue it's his as he's got the mean and the law (of man). there's land simply sitting there waiting for the family to branch off into, but they an't take it, according to the law of man. the law of God is that they can because the guy's claim is artificial. it's not "stealing". it's taking what God has given everyone.

[dairygirl4u2c]

not that everything charitable is justifiably covered byu what i'm arguing. the question is what shoudl be charity and what shouldn't./

there's room for charity. like if a guy can't even get a minimum wage job, maybe help em out. it'd seem an insurance agency is good for people with potential for job loss. maybe not as it'd be covering high risk and lose as a business, and the government would take over and run way too inefficiently. okay maybe this is an example of where charity should be used.

like minimum wage and healthcare forexample is not charity, but justice. it's a question of how you wantto approach heatlh care. if you give pepole enough they can afford it, then if they squande trtheir money, then that's tough. if you give them enough to get by with no health care, then teh government should get involved for the reasons i described with my theories. i do recognize that in the real world of yore, many couldn't get health care. but we have teh means then we didn't. and the minimum is somewhat random now might as well give everyone should havea basic cut. now, there's a difference between health care and health insurance that if you got into the details, you could devise a way to make it economical as possible... but anyway, inherently their is a certtain entitlement going on that poor should have health something.

Edited February 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1203511' date='Feb 23 2007, 05:46 PM']It's like this: I am a firm believer in genuine charity. The government forcibly taking money out of the pockets of the hard-working citizens -- which is what welfare, universal heathcare, etc., are -- is not charity.

We should inspire everyone, through Christ, to give and give much to the less fortunate. But we should never make them give what is theirs [i]forcibly[/i], which is what socialism is. It leaves the "free" citizen with no choice in the matter. Socialist economics is a false, cheap form of charity.[/quote]
Agreed.

And it should be remembered that the issues of minimum wage and welfare are not so cut-and-dry as liberals make them out to be. An artificially-raised minimum wage will actually result in more people being [i]unemployed[/i], and having [i]no[/i] income, which will mean more people on welfare, and a vicious cycle is created. And welfare deters people from taking low-paying jobs.

Rather than helping the poor, the welfare state creates a cycle of poverty and dependency.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well maybe unemployment welfare isn't the greatest idea. ideally the people who are constantly on welfare and unemployed would not have children. then the cycle would stop. maybe my theory is flawed in that they do have children. if it's charitable, they wouldn't necessarily have kids when the money's much harder to get charity if you're popping out kids.

but minimum wage and sliding scale and health care i still keep. also i have some pretty nifty ideas on the taxation of land i heard once by some guy named george something or other. the people who are layed off because of the minimum wage should be subject to charity, which would prevent breeding from them. it's about the level of living we should allow the minimum and the fact that even at two dollars pepole would argue against increase and all the other argumetns i made in my other political thread.

maybe welfare could be kept if it was reformed. it seems it's always being reformed. i wonder if it's just tug of war nothing being accomplished. a tug between people who say none at all based on ideaology and those who say some with restrictions, which i ahve to admit is ideology but.

i kinda contradicted myself in the first post mentioning welfare and then saying it's an example of charity in the last post. maybe welfare that's job insuranance isn't good. welfare that's to make up for low wages might be good

i know the senate was considering a controversial propersal. it taxed CEOs over a million and gave tax breks to businesses that were low and need it that helped hiring. while i wouldn't single out CEOs, there's somehting to that get up they got going there.

Edited February 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nathan]

An interesting fruit of the government-enforced minimum wage is that, for a great many employers, [b]it is all they are willing to pay.[/b] I could be totally wrong, but I have my suspicions that if there was no minimum wage many employers would probably pay more. But since the government says "this is all you have to pay," it's all they pay. Which, in reality, is chump change in today's world.

If the government was serious about the minimum wage as a justice issue, they would raise it considerably. Being underemployed is just as devastating as being unemployed.

[Anomaly]

dairygurl,
The fundamental problem is the wide variety of human motives, expectations, and goals. We are all balancing fundamental principles that create personal motives that are as unique as our DNA.

Some people don't like the responsiblity of management or supervision and will never be a boss. Other people thrive at being the #2 guy, leading others while having an involved boss. Other people may prefer working indendently, knowing what they have to do, getting it done, and not worrying about other people, bosses, or co-workers. Some people want to come in, work their 40 hours, and go home. Some people love their jobs, enjoy accomplishing things, solving problems, motivating people, getting things done.

How all this variety of personal motivtion and wants works out in the marketplace of society to earn a living is way too complex to make rules or laws that limit exceptions. People have to be free to try and fail so they can adjust their motives with how they're working out. If all you want to do is work 40 hours while being independent, don't walk into McDonalds and expect to make what the manager makes while you're operating the Fry station.

We should expect to be rewarded fairly for our efforts, but we are not the sole judges of the financial value of our efforts. How valuable are our efforts to society? Does Society value our work enough to give us enough cash to buy a Hummer and a swimming pool? Does Society value our work enough to give us enough cash to buy steak every day or only enough that we eat chicken 4 times a week?

Another example are artists. You may have two artists that paint 40 hours a week and sell their paintings on Saturday. Bob the Artist gets $1,000 each for his paintings, Neil the Artist gets $375 and they both sell out by 4 on Saturday. Should the government come in and say both should get $700, or both should get $1,000? Maybe, to make art affordable, both should get $200 a painting. How do you make a judgement call on that?

If both are happy with the lifestyle they can afford, isn't everything good? If Neil is extremely unhappy because he can't afford the lifestyle of Bob, who's fault is it? Is Neil painting only landscapes which don't sell as well as Bob's portraits? Is Bob simply a better artist?

We deserve the right to fail and suffer the consequences just as much as we deserve the right to succeed and enjoy the rewards. Human nature though, would rather enjoy the rewards despite the nature or worth of our efforts.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't think employers would increase the wges with no law otherwise. I think they would lower them. I too could be wrong but I don't understand why it would go up. Unless it's like an unspoken thing like price fixing only for wages. It seems more like there's only so many jobs our economy needs, some are stuck at the bottom. There are more people than jobs, so the employers can make the low ones fight for peanuts so they will. This is evidenced, I think, by the fact there's always a certain unemployment percentage. And the more people there are, the more even wages the top start to go down too with the competition from the worker.

I have always thought that some jobs should be exempted from the minimum wage. But for the most part, most of the jobs, such as McDonalds, seem to me to be enough that if you are willing to work forty a week for a year you should get at least a basic minimum. not fancy cars and pools etc. If we just things fall as they may because maybe picking dandalions for some guy shouldn't be minimum wage, then even the jobs like Mcdonalds that should be at least minimum would become a battleground for the ones at the bottom and would be paid little. Don't throw the baby out withthe bath water.

I do agree too though that freedom to fail and personal responsibilty have to be part of the system. If you can't get or keep a job, there's your personal responsiblity and freedom to fail. If you don't like and can't move ahead... there's your PR and FTF. I agree saying what is minmum wage worthy and what is not can be tough, but. Our society is structured enough I think it can be figured out.
Also, I'm not even arguing that someone working a minimum wage job get a guaranteed forty a week etc. If they only work five hours a week, that's all they get. But it should such that if they were to work forty a week for a year they should get good.

Like the picking dandalions thing, the only jobs I can think of that should be paid less are odd job and personal things. As long as the government IRS doesn't require discloser of all things you pay to people, while watching for abuse etc, then A general rule for a minimum wage seems right for our standardized, mcdonaldization of America, society. And if a few things are gray, we can make exceptions for them.

Edited February 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also. As to that CEO to minimum wage idea. And the idea that welfare to help the minimum wage job creaters.
The idea is good to just take from the rich in general and give tax breaks to the businesses that couldn't be created because of the minimum wage. I started to second guess my idea because at first I was thinking that taking from the rich would be bad because they generate jobs. Are you just taking from one job generator to another?
Maybe. But if the rich job creator had jobs that were high paying or had wealth that was in the stock market (where all money is eventually as that's where banks put it, so it doesn't matter who has it, it will be in the stock market) that wasn't being used efficiently then we'd be creating gainful minimum wage jobs. We're taking the wealth and allowing an expansion. The poor would have money in the bank that would be in the stock market like the rich guy we took could have the money in the stock market, same difference. At least with the minimum wage guy we'd know there was someone for sure benefiting.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Again most jobs are worth a minimum wage. The employers are making a lot of money because of that worker. For the most part, the minimum wage makes sense.
There is one instance, beyond what I said about picking dandalions, I guess where it may not. There's an usher job at a movie theater where they hire tons of ushers for cheap. Maybe that job isn't worth minimum wage, and why should they be expected to hire less if they are willing to work? PR and FTF would seem like a good idea here maybe. This this the exception though. A rule for minimum wage does more good than harm looking at who gets minimum wage. Exceptions are better dealt with on an individual basis.

[Anomaly]

dairygirl,
This is where experience in the real business world comes into play. The reality is, employers are profit driven. If I have a worker who does her job well and I pay her $10/hr, and she makes me $3/hr, we are happy. If her co-worker is paid $10.50 and I only make $2/hr on him, I'm less happy. If Jane says she can get a job at my competitor for $10.50, it would be worth me to pay her $10.75 because I'm still making $2.25 on her, which is more than I'm making on the other guy. Let him leave and work for my competitor. Chances are, I could probably work with Jane and her better skills and experience would allow me to make more money. You can also see from the example above, there is a limit to what I could pay someone for the job without raising my prices. The market forces for labor are driven by how much could I replace that person for. I have to consider skills, dependability, work ethic, etc.

There are a certain percentage of unemployment because there are a certain pecentage of people who are unemployable. Some people are just irresponsible and/or don't have a good work ethic. People who can manage themselves and others are worth more. People who have jobs with little responsiblity, low requirements for skill or effort, are paid less. Face it. It's human nature to do the least amount of effort for the most reward. Why would any McDonald's worker want to become a Shift Leader instead or Asst. Fry Guy if the money is the same? How fair is that?

For the same wage, who would rather be a sales clerk in Wal-Mart instead of the MD Fry Guy or a carpenter helper? W-M has tons of people applying at 'minimum wage'. MD pays more when they have to compete with WM because conditions aren't the same, much less what you have to pay a carpenter helper.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think it's a complicated issue, and conservatives tend to say to hell with it and say no minimum wage instead of trying to figure it out. Liberal probably say to hell with it and say there should be minimum wage but. I guess the only thing that can be said is you shouldn't diss necessarily the opposition.

I'm not saying pay the fry guy and the manager the same. Just that the fry guy have a minimum by law. Otherwise he'll get peanuts.

I also acknowledge you shouldn't pay someone more than they are worth. Mcdonalds etc are worth minimum.

You may have a point that the unemployed are unemployable. I think the reality is there's some who are unemployable and some who just can't find a job. There's always Mcdonalds it seems is hiring, I'm guessing more because no one wants the job as it's so poor conditions and pay. But, If all unemployed took it, I'm sure there'd be a lack of jobs for people. Whatever the case, whoever works at Mcdonalds, deserves a minimum because it's worth it.

I think another indicator that the minimum wage is needed is the fact it's used. It's not like what you said about WM and MDs so much. MD may have to pay a little more, because if you ahve a choice you'd rather work at WM. But someone's going to have to work at the one that pays minimum and they deserve a minimum. There's not enough positions open for the employers to start competing for employees and pay more than minimum. I acknowledge that just starting out, you have no skills and are worthless, but the pay increases to keep you there are de minimus. I've seen that first hand. That's why they have the turn over. They know they can just find another warm body. If that's they way they are going to be, then the minimum wage is again justified.

Jobs that pay more like in your example are not a plenty. There will always be a better qualified person, yes. But someone is gong to be stuck at the bottom. And they are going to get minimum, wage with de minimus raises. And that fact that that occurs indicates there's an issue and that minimum wage is justified.

[Anomaly]

dairygirl,
I'm kinda surprised at how you stereo type what republicans and democrats say about minimum wage. You have no factual basis to say that repubs say no to it just because it's too complicated. There are drawbacks as well as benefits to minimum wage. It is not a black or white issue, despite what the media and RC Church officials claim. Mainstream media and politicians who want the public to side with them always over simplify issues to appeal to peoples emotions so they will like them so they will watch their TV shows, vote for them, or buy their books.

I'm almost 50 and have been hiring people for decades. I've hired and fired hundreds of people, for all types of positions. I've been unemployed as an old guy and have had to take menial work to pay the bills and feed the family. I've also have made very good money.

Employers do compete for workers. That's a fact. My experience has proven out what I've learned in Business Economics classes. As you get older, you may find out like I have been taught and have experienced, money is a poor motivator for good workers. Pay is compensation for a job well done. Employers usually (not always) realize who are good workers and pay them enough to keep them, keeping in mind what it costs to replace them. Most people do not realize how obvious their work ethic is to their boss. My good people get raises 2 or 3 times a year. Marginal people will get talked to once a twice a year and may never get a raise. If they quit, I know what it costs to replace them. My good people are motivated because they want to do a good job. I pay them as fairly as I can so my branch can make a profit off them. I don't want them to quit to work for my competitor for another $1 an hour if I can afford to keep them. Sometimes they quit anyway, but come back, sometimes not.

Many, many, many people at entry level wages do not have the motivation or desire to increase their worth to their employer. They want to do the minimum work to provide for their needs. MD can hire a 15yo and train them in 30 days to adequately do the job. Minimum Wage laws forces MD to pay the 15 yo $6.15 an hour. Meanwhile, the 22yo who has a wife and doesn't live with their mom and dad, has real bills to pay, would be paid $6.15 an hour because that is the replacement cost for the skills required to work at MD. The reality is, MD is overpaying the 15yo who barely does an adequate job because he is not motivated to move up in responsiblity because the job and pay doesn't mean much to him. Meanwhile, the married guy NEEDS the job because he has to actually survive on what he earns. The 22yo will probably be more punctual, more willing to be flexible in his schedule, do a more thorough and faster job when cleaning and preping the work are, etc., etc. Some things come with maturity and work experience.

Then again, I've seen the 22yo get in the habit of doing the minimum to keep his job, because what he gets paid takes care of his needs. He may not make enough to buy a new car, save for a down payment on a house, pay for a wedding, etc. It's the choices he makes.

Minimum wage, set at a Living Wage, may be good when people do not have the opportunity to switch jobs or move up in the level of job. When unemployment is less than 6%, economists will tell you that is a strong economy and employers are competing for employees. When unemployment is greater thant 15 to 20%, there are serious problems and minimum wage laws protect the worker because they have limited opportunity to switch jobs.

There will always be pockets of exceptions as industries adapt to changing economic realities. There are more opportunities for computer technicians and electricians now, than there were 50 years ago. Well paying factory jobs are much fewer because technology has phased them out and they've gone to places where the economy is based on a cheaper standard of living. A nice living wage in Mexico would not provide food, clothing, and shelter in Texas. Minimal skills in Texas would not provide a decent living there, but if you lived in Mexico, you could support yourself. An electrician in Mexico does not get paid what an electrician in Texas gets paid because of the different costs of living, different building standards, etc.

Simple answers or principles for complicated issues are the tools of politicians and media salesmen. They are soliciting your vote or approval, not working for solutions or discussing the complete reality.

[dairygirl4u2c]

anamoly left?