McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

Snappo said:

All you do is throw out personal attacks. Once you do that, all I do is quote them, report them, and ignore the rest of what you say. When you learn not to make personal attacks, perhaps you will get more responses from people. Until that time, I will continue to identify every one of your personal attacks and report them to the moderators.

Click to expand...

Please go right ahead. They no doubt consider you an expert on personal attacks.

Snappo said:

All you do is throw out personal attacks. Once you do that, all I do is quote them, report them, and ignore the rest of what you say. When you learn not to make personal attacks, perhaps you will get more responses from people. Until that time, I will continue to identify every one of your personal attacks and report them to the moderators.

Click to expand...

CaseWeb: 720.0 Urban League and the Youth Subminimum Wage


Abstract:
In the spring of 1984, despite the economy's spectacular recovery from a severe recession, teenage unemployment remained a major problem: 19.4 percent of all teenagers and 44.8 percent of black youth, were jobless. At the urging of the Reagan administration, Congress once again began to consider a proposal to lower the minimum wage for teenagers, citing economists' arguments that the minimum wage hurt those whose skills were the most marginal. Previous proposals for a "youth subminimum wage" had failed in the face of opposition from labor and civil rights groups, but in 1984, the African-American community had begun to splinter over the subminimum wage, and as the issue gained visibility, the National Urban League felt pressed to take a stand.The case traces the history of the political and academic debate over the minimum wage and the proposed subminimum wage. It provides a vehicle for examining two alternative models of labor markets-one competitive, the other monopsonistic-and for analyzing their relative ability to explain empirical data concerning the effects of the minimum wage. The case also serves to highlight the role of labor unions. eace

ernst barkmann said:

that maybe, but would you care to show me, where the power is in the constitution that gives government the power to set wages.

Click to expand...

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws. That's Article 1 and I believe they call that the "Vesting Clause".

The part that gives them the power is "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The reason they can make laws about wages would be "To regulate Commerce among the several States". Wages certainly are a component of regulating commerce.

Article 3 gives the Supreme Court the power to determine if laws are Constitutional. SCOTUS reviewed whether the Fair Labor Standards Act was constitutional in 1941.

SCOTUS in a unanimous opinion in the case "US v Darby Lumber Company" upheld the Constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the law that established the Federal minimum wage.

ernst barkmann said:

nothing in these 18 powers for setting wages.

Click to expand...

"To regulate Commerce ... among the several States..."

Commerce by anyone's definition is the buying and selling of goods and services. A component of selling goods is the cost of goods. A component of the cost of goods is most definitely human labor. If SCOTUS didn't agree with that, they would not have voted unanimously that defining a minimum wage was constitutional.

I am not saying you have to agree with Congress and SCOTUS, as I often disagree with their decisions; but I am saying both Congress and SCOTUS took a long hard look at minimum wage and said it was absolutely constitutional.

Snappo said:

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws. That's Article 1 and I believe they call that the "Vesting Clause".

The part that gives them the power is "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The reason they can make laws about wages would be "To regulate Commerce among the several States". Wages certainly are a component of regulating commerce.

Article 3 gives the Supreme Court the power to determine if laws are Constitutional. SCOTUS reviewed whether the Fair Labor Standards Act was constitutional in 1941.

SCOTUS in a unanimous opinion in the case "US v Darby Lumber Company" upheld the Constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the law that established the Federal minimum wage.

Click to expand...

yes, laws for the foregoing powers only.

sorry no.... wages are not commerce...commerce is the buying and selling or goods and services.....you might want to read the constitution again.......it is to regulate commerce AMONG the states...not inside them.

there is no delegated power of congress to set wages, no matter what the court says........because it not listed in the constitution........powers have to be delegated, madison and Hamilton are clear about that.

again where in the constitution does it give the federal government power ......over the people?..no where.

the government only has power over people who violate delegated federal powers......IE...tax cheats, pirates ,counterfeiter and traitors

Snappo said:

"To regulate Commerce ... among the several States..."

Commerce by anyone's definition is the buying and selling of goods and services. A component of selling goods is the cost of goods. A component of the cost of goods is most definitely human labor. If SCOTUS didn't agree with that, they would not have voted unanimously that defining a minimum wage was constitutional.

I am not saying you have to agree with Congress and SCOTUS, as I often disagree with their decisions; but I am saying both Congress and SCOTUS took a long hard look at minimum wage and said it was absolutely constitutional.

Click to expand...

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

"The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience"

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INSIDE THE STATES, AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ THIS LITTLE GEM BELOW.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

THIS STATES THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWERS OUTSIDE OF D.C. UNLESS THE STATES APPROVE OF IT, FOR NEEDFUL BUILDINGS ONLY, GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY ON PRIVATE OR STATE LAND.

AlabamaPaul said:

I'm addressing your posts, not those of others, and no, I don't care to review 400 posts to find yours. The question was as simple as I could make it, yet you would rather accuse one of trolling than directly addressing it, and I'm still waiting for you to do so. Would you like for me to post the question once again?

Click to expand...

So that you do not have to read the rest of THIS THREAD that you are posting in (which is where I posted my view of minimum wage), I will share it with you again.

Overview of facts taken into account in defining my opinion:
I gave an example of what I believed was a reasonable budget for a family of three. I came up with about $1,900 a month. I further searched through Federal websites and came up with Uncle Sam determining that the poverty threshold for a family of three in 2012 was $19,090. I divided the $19,090 by the standard hours in a work year (2080 minus holidays and sick days) and I came up with an hourly wage of roughly $10/hr. I took my estimate of a budget of $1,900 and divided by the work hours in a month and also came up with $10/hr.

My position:
Since Uncle Sam subsidizes Americans that make less than the poverty threshold of $19,090 with such things as section-8 housing, welfare, food stamps, and free medical care; I believe that increasing minimum wage such that all working Americans are above that poverty threshold will lower my tax obligation considerably. I believe that one of the major economic issues in America is the Federal Budget, and I further believe that the entitlements in the Federal Budget and defense spending in the federal budget should be reduced by 50% so that the budget works toward becoming balanced, lowers the debt, increases the health of Social Security, and potentially lowers my tax rate (I am in the highest tax rate in USA).

ernst barkmann said:

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

"The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience"

Click to expand...

I have read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, but I thank you for their link and the reminder of the importance of those documents. While I am a Libertarian and prefer to side with Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, and the rest of the anti-Federalists; I do believe that Congress absolutely has the power to regulate wages, and I agree with the SCOTUS unanimous position that the minimum wage component of the Fair Labor Act was constitutional. My view is in no small part due to the fact that if there is no minimum wage that more Americans could be eligible for entitlement programs, and that these entitlement programs come on the back of my decades of hard labor and academic efforts.

ernst barkmann said:

article 1 section 8..

Click to expand...

I'm sure that when you go back to the Euro origins of your family, actually visiting the cities of your ancestors, you cannot understand or see how your family got to the US.....without a genealogy chart and family history.

Going back to original documents gives no understanding to where we are now. You are leaving out the middle, only you can answer why.

Snappo said:

I have read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, but I thank you for their link and the reminder of the importance of those documents. While I am a Libertarian and prefer to side with Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, and the rest of the anti-Federalists; I do believe that Congress absolutely has the power to regulate wages, and I agree with the SCOTUS unanimous position that the minimum wage component of the Fair Labor Act was constitutional. My view is in no small part due to the fact that if there is no minimum wage that more Americans could be eligible for entitlement programs, and that these entitlement programs come on the back of my decades of hard labor and academic efforts.

Click to expand...

HAMILTON WAS NOT AN ANTI -FEDERALIST.

founders were clear, commerce was turned over to the federal government, to prevent trade wars and barriers from happening, becuase states were making trade laws,c ausing commerce to come to a stand still under the articles of confederation.

people and business do not make laws, .....why would congress have the power to regulate those who dont make law?

ernst barkmann said:

t is to regulate commerce AMONG the states...not inside them.

Click to expand...

Among is "within the midst". So a law saying you have to pay an employee $10 an hour in New York would be a law that affects the people and companies in the midst of NY. I believe it is legal to create minimum wages for Uncle Sam, and feel on a State Constitution by State Constitution level that it would probably be legal for individual States to make laws pertaining to minimum wage. BTW - either way is fine for me. If a person lives in NY and the State says he has to make $25K a year, that would still mean my taxes go down because $25K a year would mean that family was not entitled to Section-8, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, or free medical care. And when Federal entitlements go from $350 billion down to $100 billion; I have to assume my taxes will go down too. I am also for the Defense Spending to go from $800 billion down to $300 billion. Seems to me if Russia is at $70 billion and China is at $140 billion, that $300 billion is 30% more than the two of them combined and the safety of USA is preserved. So just cutting those two line items saves us about $750 billion and I have to assume that savings could be used to pay down some debt and make Social Security healthy again.

Jack Hays said:

CaseWeb: 720.0 Urban League and the Youth Subminimum Wage

Click to expand...

If sub-minimal wages increased youth employment, it should work across racial lines, but since 1972 it has not decreased white youth unemployment.



Notice that the increases in unemployment for black youths correlates with recessions. Also notice that Black youth unemployment is at the same level now as in 1972.

Gimmesometruth said:

I'm sure that when you go back to the Euro origins of your family, actually visiting the cities of your ancestors, you cannot understand or see how your family got to the US.....without a genealogy chart and family history.

Going back to original documents gives no understanding to where we are now. You are leaving out the middle, only you can answer why.

Click to expand...

the founders who wrote the constitution state government is limited. its duties are few and defined.

.the 10th....."all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution shall remain the power of the states"

the founders say the delegated powers of congress are 18 powers......i see nothing about wages in the constitution, and commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services,

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

Snappo said:

So that you do not have to read the rest of THIS THREAD that you are posting in (which is where I posted my view of minimum wage), I will share it with you again.

Overview of facts taken into account in defining my opinion:
I gave an example of what I believed was a reasonable budget for a family of three. I came up with about $1,900 a month. I further searched through Federal websites and came up with Uncle Sam determining that the poverty threshold for a family of three in 2012 was $19,090. I divided the $19,090 by the standard hours in a work year (2080 minus holidays and sick days) and I came up with an hourly wage of roughly $10/hr. I took my estimate of a budget of $1,900 and divided by the work hours in a month and also came up with $10/hr.

My position:
Since Uncle Sam subsidizes Americans that make less than the poverty threshold of $19,090 with such things as section-8 housing, welfare, food stamps, and free medical care; I believe that increasing minimum wage such that all working Americans are above that poverty threshold will lower my tax obligation considerably. I believe that one of the major economic issues in America is the Federal Budget, and I further believe that the entitlements in the Federal Budget and defense spending in the federal budget should be reduced by 50% so that the budget works toward becoming balanced, lowers the debt, increases the health of Social Security, and potentially lowers my tax rate (I am in the highest tax rate in USA).

Click to expand...

Thank you, but I would have to disagree. The minimum wage was never intended to support a family of any size. It has only served to freeze out lesser skilled applicants during times of high unemployment and to further increase incentives for business to eliminate jobs at the lower end of the wage scale. If your desire is for individuals to become self-supporting, long-term support must be removed for those capable of doing so...

Snappo said:

Among is "within the midst". So a law saying you have to pay an employee $10 an hour in New York would be a law that affects the people and companies in the midst of NY. I believe it is legal to create minimum wages for Uncle Sam, and feel on a State Constitution by State Constitution level that it would probably be legal for individual States to make laws pertaining to minimum wage. BTW - either way is fine for me. If a person lives in NY and the State says he has to make $25K a year, that would still mean my taxes go down because $25K a year would mean that family was not entitled to Section-8, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, or free medical care. And when Federal entitlements go from $350 billion down to $100 billion; I have to assume my taxes will go down too. I am also for the Defense Spending to go from $800 billion down to $300 billion. Seems to me if Russia is at $70 billion and China is at $140 billion, that $300 billion is 30% more than the two of them combined and the safety of USA is preserved. So just cutting those two line items saves us about $750 billion and I have to assume that savings could be used to pay down some debt and make Social Security healthy again.

Click to expand...

wrong!


among does not mean inside the states, it means between the members[ the states] as madison states in federalist 42.

Gimmesometruth said:

I'm sure that when you go back to the Euro origins of your family, actually visiting the cities of your ancestors, you cannot understand or see how your family got to the US.....without a genealogy chart and family history.

Click to expand...

I personally cannot go back to my origins. Hitler killed every person on my father's side of the family except his mother (my grandmother). My grandmother's 13 siblings and two parents were murdered and every one of their possessions confiscated. She is the only one to escape Warsaw. On my mother's side, Russian Pogroms took the lives and possessions of everyone except my great grandfather; even going so far as to destroy proof of them ever having existed. So all I have to form my views is what I read and what I experience. All my ancestors are dead and none wrote about St. Petersburg or the Warsaw ghettos. My grandmother went to both locations to do research before she died and came up empty.

ernst barkmann said:

among does not mean inside the states

Click to expand...

a·mong (-mng) also a·mongst (-mngst)
prep.
1. In the midst of; surrounded by: a pine tree among cedars.
[Middle English, from Old English mang : , in; see a-2 + gemang, throng; see mag- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Snappo said:

a·mong (-mng) also a·mongst (-mngst)
prep.
1. In the midst of; surrounded by: a pine tree among cedars.
[Middle English, from Old English mang : , in; see a-2 + gemang, throng; see mag- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Click to expand...

you need to read. ..why was commerce turned over to the federal government?

answer becuase under the articles of confederation, states were enacting trade barriers, and trade wars with other states, this was causing commerce to come to a stand still in america.

so commerce was turned over to the federal government, to regulate commerce laws, which were enacted by the states, with the federal government having authority over them.

people and business do not make commerce laws, .why should they be regulated, since they have no power over commerce?

a·mong
əˈməNG/
preposition
preposition: among; preposition: amongst

1.
surrounded by; in the company of.
"wild strawberries hidden among the roots of the trees"
synonyms: surrounded by, in the company of, amid, in the middle of, with; More
literaryamidst, in the midst of
"you're among friends"
2.
being a member or members of (a larger set).
"he was among the first 29 students enrolled"
synonyms: included in, one/some of, in the group/number of More
"a child was among the injured"
3.
occurring in or practiced by (some members of a community).
"a drop in tooth decay among children"
involving most or all members of a group reciprocally.
"members of the government bickered among themselves"
synonyms: jointly, mutually, together, with one another More
"decide among yourselves"
4.
indicating a division, choice, or differentiation involving three or more participants.
"the king called the three princesses to divide his kingdom among them"
synonyms: between, to each of More
"he distributed the proceeds among his creditors"

Origin
More
Old English ongemang (from on ‘in’ + gemang ‘assemblage, mingling’). The -st of amongst represents -s (adverbial genitive) + -t probably by association with superlatives (as in against ).



The defect of power in the existing confederacy,[articles of confederation] to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience"

who are the members........they are the states

AlabamaPaul said:

Thank you, but I would have to disagree. The minimum wage was never intended to support a family of any size. It has only served to freeze out lesser skilled applicants during times of high unemployment and to further increase incentives for business to eliminate jobs at the lower end of the wage scale. If your desire is for individuals to become self-supporting, long-term support must be removed for those capable of doing so...

Click to expand...

I am not sure of the complete intent, but do know that when minimum wage was created the POTUS said it was the most important thing since the New Deal. Clearly Congress and the POTUS felt passionate about minimum wage. In fact, the guy who created it - he went on to become a Supreme Court Justice. SCOTUS ruled on minimum wage a few years later and they were unanimous and not split in their view of it.

I absolutely desire for Americans to become self supporting. I want the ones that do not work to start working, and I want the ones that do work to make enough that they do not ask for entitlements to subsidize their work. Minimum wage won't fix the lack of work in USA, but it will get the working ones off entitlement. To go after the ones that do not work is a much more complicated matter and involves cultural changes for minorities and some other things. But minimum wage I view as a definite fix that should lower entitlements considerably.

ernst barkmann said:

the founders who wrote the constitution state government is limited. its duties are few and defined.

Click to expand...

As usual, you completely ignore the point I made. It is not 1787, we have had vast amounts of interpretation of the Constitution since then and to ignore the path of how we got from there to here is just intellectual laziness.

Fundamentalism is so boring and dead, it is luddism defined.

Snappo said:

I personally cannot go back to my origins.

Click to expand...

So are trying to claim you don't know how your familiy got from there to here.....and this is a justification from your luddism?

ernst barkmann said:

you need to read. ..why was commerce turned over to the federal government?

answer because under the articles of confederation, states were enacting trade barriers, and trade wars with other states, this was causing commerce to come to a stand still in America.

so commerce was turned over to the federal government, to regulate commerce laws, which were enacted by the states, with the federal government having authority over them.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you about the motivation to put those commerce controls in the USC. I am merely saying that the vesting clause is why Congress can make a minimum wage. This is no different than the 2nd Amendment. That was so that we could quickly form a militia to repel an invasion. Just because nowadays we have an Air National Guard and a National Guard is no reason IMHO to toss out the 2nd Amendment. Same thing. Just because the motivation of the time was well known does not limit the present day value of something in the USC. And the value of the vesting clause is clear in this case - it allows Congress to create a minimum wage. And I use the word "allows" because the judicial branch SCOTUS said it was allowed after reviewing it.

Gimmesometruth said:

As usual, you completely ignore the point I made. It is not 1787, we have had vast amounts of interpretation of the Constitution since then and to ignore the path of how we got from there to here is just intellectual laziness.

Fundamentalism is so boring and dead, it is luddism defined.

Click to expand...

so..... since the founders who say what commerce is for, ..you instead chose to ignore them, and make you own interpretation.........how convenient.

i dont find it amazing you dont wish to follow the constitution.......so few people do.....

Snappo said:

I am not sure of the complete intent, but do know that when minimum wage was created the POTUS said it was the most important thing since the New Deal. Clearly Congress and the POTUS felt passionate about minimum wage. In fact, the guy who created it - he went on to become a Supreme Court Justice. SCOTUS ruled on minimum wage a few years later and they were unanimous and not split in their view of it.

I absolutely desire for Americans to become self supporting. I want the ones that do not work to start working, and I want the ones that do work to make enough that they do not ask for entitlements to subsidize their work. Minimum wage won't fix the lack of work in USA, but it will get the working ones off entitlement. To go after the ones that do not work is a much more complicated matter and involves cultural changes for minorities and some other things. But minimum wage I view as a definite fix that should lower entitlements considerably.

Click to expand...

Where do families come into play in your view? There will always be those that choose not to work, and as long as entitlements are available will be content with what government provides. All a minimum wage does is to give less incentive for business to provide entry level jobs in the marketplace...

AlabamaPaul said:

Thank you, but I would have to disagree. The minimum wage was never intended to support a family of any size. It has only served to freeze out lesser skilled applicants during times of high unemployment and to further increase incentives for business to eliminate jobs at the lower end of the wage scale. If your desire is for individuals to become self-supporting, long-term support must be removed for those capable of doing so...

Click to expand...

I always find that removing water and fertilizer causes my plants to....die.