Is minimum wage a lot?

ernst barkmann said:

you do not have the ability to refute anything becuase you do not even understand what has been posted.

if you had read it correctly, you would have seen i said legislative authority [congress] , has no general authority over the people.......the executive branch is not congress, and if you violate a federal power article 1 section8 or commit treason, the feds can arrest you.

talk about other people's lack of reading comprehension....look at yours!

Click to expand...

No, you did what you always do. You made an absurd blanket statement that gets refuted. Then you refine your original blanket statement to adjust for the part that was refuted. When that also is shown to be untrue, you further refine your statement to cover that rebuttal. It's an endless game of BS with you changing your tune every time you're shown to be wrong.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad except the next thread will start over with the same absurd blanket statement and the process repeats itself. You have at least three pending threads where your position was shot down and you still insist on repeating the process.

vasuderatorrent said:

In theory, that could be $15,080 per year. There really isn't a magical number. You seem reluctant to provide a magic number.

I have never heard of a dead 4 year old that died of starvation because his parents only maybe $15,080 between the two of them. You probably haven't either. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but it hasn't made headlines.

Click to expand...

Because there isn't a magic number, it depends on where you live what that dollar threshold might be. It's a concept and I'd say that if you can care for your family, keep a roof over your head and food on the table and not have your hand out to the government, you're probably okay. That's a dead minimum. It's just skill and effort that can make you more comfortable and more money above and beyond the minimums.

vasuderatorrent said:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who quits a job making $55,000 per year in order to get a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

Same question, slightly different:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who is fired from a job making $55,000 per year, then gets a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

The logic seems very simplistic.

Click to expand...

Mentally ill? Perhaps not. Irresponsible? Absolutely, assuming this was a choice.

I don't respect irresponsible people a bit.

vasuderatorrent said:

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot of money?

Click to expand...

The answer is subjective. Each person has his own subjective notion of what "a lot" means.

Federalist said:

Unfettered capitalism is an oxymoron. If people are lawless and unfettered there can be no secure property rights and individual liberty, and without secure property rights and individual liberty there cannot be capitalism.

You seem to be confusing capitalism with lawless chaos, which might explain your negative opinion of it.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand my position. I have no problem at all with regulated capitalism, it's the best economic system we've come up with so far. It's the truly free market that needs to be avoided because capitalism, like any other efficient machine, needs a governor to keep it in check or it'll destroy itself.


You're like the guys that object to gun control but don't want their neighbors owning working tanks. What you seem to want to talk about is the degree of government regulation and control over the market, not a truly free market system versus the regulated market that we have. I think you're the one that's confused, here.

Federalist said:

The function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizens so that capitalism can function properly. Without secure property rights, it would be unfettered chaos.

Your comparison of capitalism to slavery is bunk.

Click to expand...

The function of government has nothing to do with capitalism. You were doing just fine up to that point. The function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizens - period.

Unfettered capitalism is, indeed, nothing more than Might Makes Right. OTOH - properly controlled and regulated capitalism is a wonderful tool for growth and prosperity.

MoSurveyor said:

No, you did what you always do. You made an absurd blanket statement that gets refuted. Then you refine your original blanket statement to adjust for the part that was refuted. When that also is shown to be untrue, you further refine your statement to cover that rebuttal. It's an endless game of BS with you changing your tune every time you're shown to be wrong.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad except the next thread will start over with the same absurd blanket statement and the process repeats itself. You have at least three pending threads where your position was shot down and you still insist on repeating the process.

Click to expand...

i will say it again for you, the federal government has no legislative authority over the people, unless a citizen violates a federal power of article 1 section 8, any laws pertaining to those powers congress can make, if a citizen commits an act against one of them.

but congress has no blanket general authority to make laws over the people that have nothing to do with article 1 section 8, or treason.

the executive branch of government can arrest if you are violating something IN article 1 section 8, or treason.

Gipper said:

You seem to be down on the word "unfettered", but statists like yourself don't mind giving that kind of power to a centralized oppressor. Also, pretty much nobody here wants a market that's completely free. That's a trait of anarcho-capitalism, which very, very few here adhere to. Even the laissez-faire crowd, especially those well-versed in economics, know what market failures are, and the existence of such.

It sounds like you're wanting federal totalitarianism to determine winners and losers. How you consider that to be better is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I use unfettered because an economist friend of mine used it to differentiate between a truly free market (no controls at all) and the free market system we currently have. Yes, he also used laissez-faire but his interpretation of that was some government control - much as you seem to have depicted it. Maybe that was a 70's thing. :shrug:

As for what Federalist is talking about - I suggest you read more of his posts in other threads. I'd say no public property at all, including streets and parks, is getting pretty far down the road to a completely free market.



You obviously have no clue as to my position on economics or government. Just for starters, compared to me you're most likely pro gun control.
:lamo

MoSurveyor said:

I use unfettered because an economist friend of mine used it to differentiate between a truly free market (no controls at all) and the free market system we currently have. Yes, he also used laissez-faire but his interpretation of that was some government control - much as you seem to have depicted it. Maybe that was a 70's thing. :shrug:

As for what Federalist is talking about - I suggest you read more of his posts in other threads. I'd say no public property at all, including streets and parks, is getting pretty far down the road to a completely free market.



You obviously have no clue as to my position on economics or government. Just for starters, compared to me you're most likely pro gun control.
:lamo

Click to expand...

Oh, he's wrong too. You were just the larger of these two evils. Hold your head up high.

MoSurveyor said:

You seem to misunderstand my position. I have no problem at all with regulated capitalism, it's the best economic system we've come up with so far. It's the truly free market that needs to be avoided because capitalism, like any other efficient machine, needs a governor to keep it in check or it'll destroy itself.

Click to expand...

Unfettered capitalism is an oxymoron. Captialism is a system in which the people's property rights and liberty are secure and protected. If people act in an "unfettered" way, then capitalism cannot exist. At that point all you have is lawless chaos, not a free market but a free-for-all. The fact that you refer to lawless chaos as capitalism shows that you don't actually understand what capitalism is.

You're like the guys that object to gun control but don't want their neighbors owning working tanks. What you seem to want to talk about is the degree of government regulation and control over the market, not a truly free market system versus the regulated market that we have. I think you're the one that's confused, here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I concern myself with what types of laws are enacted. The sole, legitimate purpose of law is to protect person and property. I support any law that does so. I also oppose any law that punishes acts that do not result in a victim whose person or property has been assaulted or damaged, which is to say I oppose victimless crimes.

The function of government has nothing to do with capitalism. You were doing just fine up to that point. The function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizens - period.

Click to expand...

Hey, that sounds exactly like something I would write. I agree with that point 110%

Unfettered capitalism is, indeed, nothing more than Might Makes Right. OTOH - properly controlled and regulated capitalism is a wonderful tool for growth and prosperity.

Click to expand...

You keep using the term "unfettered capitalism" when it is impossible to have capitalism without the fetters that restrain people from violating the person or property of others. Without fetters, there is indeed lawlessness and might makess right, but to call that capitalism is wrong. Capitalism results only when people are restrained from violating the person and property of others and when people are free to engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. This is the exact opposite of unfettered behavior, and the exact opposite of might makes right.

You are either confused as to what capitalism actually is, or you are being disingenuous.

And, to relate this back to the OP, the law in question is a law that criminalizes paying someone below a fixed price. Paying someone below a fixed price does not assault or damage anyone's person or property. Therefore, based on your statement that the function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizen, a minimum wage law does not serve this function. And because it uses the force of government to punish a person who has not assaulted or harmed anyone's person or property, such a law is itself a violation of person and property. On those grounds, it must be opposed.

vasuderatorrent said:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who quits a job making $55,000 per year in order to get a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

Click to expand...

yes

Same question, slightly different:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who is fired from a job making $55,000 per year, then gets a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

.

Click to expand...

re-read my comment. if you are 40 and STILL making minimum wage..... the implication here is that you started at minimum wage and are STILL there.

I fully undersand that sometimes things happen that are beyond a person's control.

ernst barkmann said:

i will say it again for you, the federal government has no legislative authority over the people, unless a citizen violates a federal power of article 1 section 8, any laws pertaining to those powers congress can make, if a citizen commits an act against one of them.

but congress has no blanket general authority to make laws over the people that have nothing to do with article 1 section 8, or treason.

the executive branch of government can arrest if you are violating something IN article 1 section 8, or treason.

Click to expand...

the constitution applies no force to the people and it gave no power to the federal government to apply force to 'we the people'

Click to expand...

That was your original statement, which you now admit is incorrect - unless you think jail and/or a death sentence isn't "force".

Gipper said:

Oh, he's wrong too. You were just the larger of these two evils. Hold your head up high.

Click to expand...

Who was wrong, too?

And, exactly, what is it you think I'm "wrong" about?

MoSurveyor said:

I use unfettered because an economist friend of mine used it to differentiate between a truly free market (no controls at all) and the free market system we currently have. Yes, he also used laissez-faire but his interpretation of that was some government control - much as you seem to have depicted it. Maybe that was a 70's thing.

Click to expand...

I imaging that we would agree that the following, from investopedia is a suitable description of capitalism:


Please note that it says that capitalism is based on ownership. Ownership relies on law and order. There must be laws that protect property from theft, damage, and various other violations. There must be contract law, so that property can be legally transferred from one party to another.

You seem to be using the term capitalism to mean "a system in which there is no law and order and property rights are not protected". As you can see from the very definition of capitalism, it is a system founded upon property rights and property and contract laws. It is absolutely not a description of a society in which people are "unfettered" and in which might makes right. I don't now what such a system would be called. Perhaps chaos, or lawlessness, but it cannot be called capitalism, because capitalism simply cannot exist in a lawless society. It is predicated upon the enforcement of property rights.

MoSurveyor said:

That was your original statement, which you now admit is incorrect - unless you think jail and/or a death sentence isn't "force".

Click to expand...

you still dont understand.....

state powers encompass the...... life's, liberty and property of the people.

congress cannot created laws, to legislate those things.....because as stated they are state powers.

congress cannot make laws unless they pertain the powers of article 1 section 8.......none of the powers of article 1 section 8 have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.

if a citizen WERE to violate something in article 1 section 8, counterfeiting, treason , piracy......which the congress has authority to create legislation for those things [laws], then government can arrest you and punish you.

but it has no legislative authority, outside of d.c. or on anything which is not federal property.

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;

Federalist said:

I imaging that we would agree that the following, from investopedia is a suitable description of capitalism:

A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy).​

Please note that it says that capitalism is based on ownership. Ownership relies on law and order. There must be laws that protect property from theft, damage, and various other violations. There must be contract law, so that property can be legally transferred from one party to another.

Click to expand...

That's private ownership as opposed to state ownership (socialism) or no ownership (communism). You're adding in a whole slew of stuff that isn't required for ownership. I have a hammer in my hand so it's mine - I own it - until I put it down, give it to someone else, or someone takes it away from me.

Federalist said:

You seem to be using the term capitalism to mean "a system in which there is no law and order and property rights are not protected". As you can see from the very definition of capitalism, it is a system founded upon property rights and property and contract laws. It is absolutely not a description of a society in which people are "unfettered" and in which might makes right. I don't now what such a system would be called. Perhaps chaos, or lawlessness, but it cannot be called capitalism, because capitalism simply cannot exist in a lawless society. It is predicated upon the enforcement of property rights.

Click to expand...

The best of example of unfettered capitalism is monopolies. A truly free market system would accept monopolies. It would not recognize any form of patent, trademark, or logo protection - along with no copywrite. This is an unregulated system where anything goes, where only Might ($$$) Makes Right. Followed to it's logical conclusion, it leads to tyranny and/or slavery.

ernst barkmann said:

you still dont understand.....

state powers encompass the...... life's, liberty and property of the people.

congress cannot created laws, to legislate those things.....because as stated they are state powers.

congress cannot make laws unless they pertain the powers of article 1 section 8.......none of the powers of article 1 section 8 have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.

if a citizen WERE to violate something in article 1 section 8, counterfeiting, treason , piracy......which the congress has authority to create legislation for those things [laws], then government can arrest you and punish you.

but it has no legislative authority, outside of d.c. or on anything which is not federal property.

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;

Click to expand...

Yawn.

Of course you don't recognize the ramifications of the commerce clause in the modern world. You're still living in 1789.

MoSurveyor said:

That's private ownership as opposed to state ownership (socialism) or no ownership (communism). You're adding in a whole slew of stuff that isn't required for ownership. I have a hammer in my hand so it's mine - I own it - until I put it down, give it to someone else, or someone takes it away from me.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't know the difference between the words "have" and "own". Ownership is a collection of legal rights to use and enjoy property, including the right to transmit it to others.

A society that has a legal institution of property and ownership must have law and order, since ownership cannot be protected without enforcement of laws. In a society with private ownership, it is illegal to assault, damage, or steal someone else's property. This precludes your "might makes right" claim. Capitalism requires a legal framework in which property rights in rivalrous resources are legally protected, otherwise there would be lawlessness and chaos, not capitalism, which requires ownership to exist.

The best of example of unfettered capitalism is monopolies. A truly free market system would accept monopolies.

Click to expand...

Monopolies are a myth. No single company has ever (at least without government interference) eliminated every one of its competitors.

It would not recognize any form of patent, trademark, or logo protection - along with no copywrite. This is an unregulated system where anything goes, where only Might ($$$) Makes Right. Followed to it's logical conclusion, it leads to tyranny and/or slavery.

Click to expand...

No, in order for capitalism to exist, people's property rights in rivalrous resources must be legally protected. This means that, in such a society, might does not make right, and it would be illegal for anyone to assault, violate, or steal the property of another. Capitalism cannot exist in the presence of tyranny or slavery, as these are violations of property rights.

MoSurveyor said:

The function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizens - period.

Click to expand...

Minimum wage laws criminalize paying someone below a fixed price. Paying someone below a fixed price does not assault or damage anyone's person or property. Therefore, based on your statement that the function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizen, a minimum wage law does not serve this function. And because it uses the force of government to punish a person who has not assaulted or harmed anyone's person or property, such a law is itself a violation of person and property.

On what grounds to you then support minimum wage laws, if they are contrary to the function of government?

MoSurveyor said:

The Rule of Capitalism: Might Makes Right!

Yeah, that's "freedom" ... :roll:

Click to expand...

In some ways, it is.

In others, not so much.

vasuderatorrent said:

That's very observant. You seem to be very intelligent.

Click to expand...

I should change my name to Captain Obvious.

OscarB63 said:

I fully undersand that sometimes things happen that are beyond a person's control.

Click to expand...

Do you?

Cephus said:

I'd say that if you can care for your family, keep a roof over your head and food on the table and not have your hand out to the government, you're probably okay.

Click to expand...

Can I share some reality with you? or Is reality too foolish for you?

Federalist said:

You clearly don't know the difference between the words "have" and "own". Ownership is a collection of legal rights to use and enjoy property, including the right to transmit it to others.

A society that has a legal institution of property and ownership must have law and order, since ownership cannot be protected without enforcement of laws. In a society with private ownership, it is illegal to assault, damage, or steal someone else's property. This precludes your "might makes right" claim. Capitalism requires a legal framework in which property rights in rivalrous resources are legally protected, otherwise there would be lawlessness and chaos, not capitalism, which requires ownership to exist.

Click to expand...

The economic definition is meant to differentiate between the various types of 'ownership', not declare that ownership is ONLY a legal institution or that ownership MUST be protected (by some force except the owner) to have meaning. It's possible for people to recognize ownership from a position of physical power as opposed to legal power. Our society may not recognize such but that doesn't exclude the possibility. Go ask the general public in South America what the drug cartels "own" regardless of what deeds and titles might say. Ask the people in the slums who "owns" what, it won't always match the legal owner. I'm sure the whole "it MUST be this way" fits in well with your green little world but it's not reality.

Federalist said:

Monopolies are a myth. No single company has ever (at least without government interference) eliminated every one of its competitors.

Click to expand...

You want legal, here it is ...

Monopoly: "a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity."
-Black's Law, Fifth Edition

Note it says "one or more persons or companies".

Monopolies don't exist because they're illegal and there's a reason we've made them illegal. You think we made a law to stop a myth?!? What will we outlaw next, gremlins?

Federalist said:

No, in order for capitalism to exist, people's property rights in rivalrous resources must be legally protected. This means that, in such a society, might does not make right, and it would be illegal for anyone to assault, violate, or steal the property of another.

Click to expand...

You've not shown even the first part of that statement let alone the rest of it. You're trying to make capitalism dependent on a given political and/or legal system but it's not. Those green colored glasses are still clouding your view.

Federalist said:

Capitalism cannot exist in the presence of tyranny or slavery, as these are violations of property rights.

Click to expand...

You're saying the South wasn't a capitalist society????

You get 3/3 for that nonsense! :lamo :lamo :lamo

vasuderatorrent said:

Do you?

Click to expand...

I understand that there is a difference between a 40 y/o who gets laid off from a good job and has to work minimum wage and a 40 y/o who has never done anything except work for minimum wage

Do you?

Neomalthusian said:

starting a family before you're financially ready is idiotic.

Click to expand...

You're speaking like a man who doesn't have a family of his own. What does financially ready mean in your world? A house paid in full? A car paid in full? Say for example that you have about $500 left over after paying all of your monthly expenses not including a kid. Is that enough to raise a kid on? Laughable really. Financially ready as a condition for having kids is nowhere near as subjective as minimum wage. You need a certain amount of money just to have kids and what if you don't have it? Then are you're not financially ready? Good luck finding anybody in the middle class who is financially ready to have a kid then. Yourself included.