• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington to California: Drop dead

phattonez said:
Wbreese, companies work together to screw the little guy? You think too much of companies. They don't like each other. In fact, they'll pay their workers competitive wages in order to get the best labor and do better than other businesses.

You may not believe this, but competition actually encourages higher wages.
Click to expand...

No, I think companies take ideas from other companies and base their actions off what other companies are doing. Therefore, if one company sees that another company can get away with paying its workers less, they are more likely to pay their workers less. Competition incourages higher profits, not higher always wages.
 
wbreese91 said:
No, I think companies take ideas from other companies and base their actions off what other companies are doing. Therefore, if one company sees that another company can get away with paying its workers less, they are more likely to pay their workers less. Competition incourages higher profits, not higher always wages.
Click to expand...

But if one company is giving its workers less than they produce by a wide margin, then another company can come in and hire all of those workers for higher wages and so effectively kill the competition.
 
phattonez said:
But if one company is giving its workers less than they produce by a wide margin, then another company can come in and hire all of those workers for higher wages and so effectively kill the competition.
Click to expand...

A mass worker exodus is unlikely as the competing company would be unable to hire all the competitions workers, but both of us are speculating here. Either scenario could happen, but a minimum wage gives the workers some security. A company can still pay more and steal the workers if they want, but workers are protected from insufficient wages. I will argue with you if you want to say the minimum wage is too high, and that we shouldn't have unions forcing people into providing healthcare and other benefits to their workers, but I do not agree that the minimum wage should be elliminated.
 
phattonez said:
General welfare is a very vague term that has been exploited by Democrats for years.
Click to expand...

Such as the noted libtard Alexander Hamilton

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Never even heard of it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. Read it sometime, along with US v. Butler.

What I do believe is that you've just argued from authority, and hence FAILED.

Hint: Courts **** up.
Click to expand...

Watch me blow your mind. Stick with me, I know it will be tough.

Arguing from authority: Stating your stance on something and then pointing out that an authority figure agreed with your stance.

This type of argument can be flawed, because it assumes that the authority figure is right.

Here's what's happening here:

I'm not arguing that the SC said that general welfare clause was intended to be read broadly for the purpose of proving that the general welfare clause was intended to be read broadly.

I'm pointing out that the SC said that the general welfare clause was intended to be read broadly for the purpose of proving that the current state of jurisprudence in this country is that the general welfare clause is read broadly.

See how that's different from arguing from authority?

I might not like the decisions in Butler or Wickard, but they are the law as it stands and aren't likely to be overturned anytime soon.
 
RightinNYC said:
Such as the noted libtard Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia: "An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new U.S. Congress funded the national debt, assumed state debts, created a national bank, and established an import tariff and whiskey tax."

Sounds like no libertarian that I know.
 
wbreese91 said:
A mass worker exodus is unlikely as the competing company would be unable to hire all the competitions workers, but both of us are speculating here. Either scenario could happen, but a minimum wage gives the workers some security. A company can still pay more and steal the workers if they want, but workers are protected from insufficient wages. I will argue with you if you want to say the minimum wage is too high, and that we shouldn't have unions forcing people into providing healthcare and other benefits to their workers, but I do not agree that the minimum wage should be elliminated.
Click to expand...

Mass worker exodus probably won't happen, but when someone is training for a job, which will he eventually apply for? The one that pays more, of course.

You ignored my example about teen employment. Black teens now are twice as unemployed as white teens whereas previously they had roughly the same unemployment rate. This shows that (as expected) minimum wage is a barrier to entry into the job market. If your skills are not worth the minimum wage then why should you be hired? Most people don't make minimum wage, but if you don't have much education and can't get job experience then you're not going to make much money in the future. Guess which groups this hurts the most.
 
RightinNYC said:
Such as the noted libtard Alexander Hamilton



That doesn't surprise me. Read it sometime, along with US v. Butler.
Click to expand...

Still arguing from authority, I see, since you have neither logic nor Constitution on your side.

The fact of the matter is that both Hamilton and Madison, who disagreed on just about everything, agreed that the enumeration of specific powers to the Congress in the Constitution meant that Congressional power was limited to only those areas, and that it defied logic (as it does) to enumerate powers if, as some falsely claim (you) Congressional powers have no limits.

Thomes Jefferson, noted in one of his inaugural addresses that the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to spend federal money on public education. He therefore petitioned Congress to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution authorizing same. Congress agreed. Congress agreed that there was no authorization, and they neither passed an amendment nor spent the money.

Because Congressional power is limited.

RightinNYC said:
Watch me blow your mind. Stick with me, I know it will be tough.

Arguing from authority: Stating your stance on something and then pointing out that an authority figure agreed with your stance.

This type of argument can be flawed, because it assumes that the authority figure is right.
Click to expand...

Oh, good. YOu can find the defition of logic jargon on line.

Can you find the Constitution on line?


RightinNYC said:
Here's what's happening here:
Click to expand...

You're arguing that someone else said up is down, so spilled drinks land on the ceiling. Since no one walks on the ceiling, it must be okay.

I can see what you're doing.

RightinNYC said:
I might not like the decisions in Butler or Wickard, but they are the law as it stands and aren't likely to be overturned anytime soon.
Click to expand...

You LOVE the false decision in Butler.

And no, it's not the law.

Laws are written by legislatures and signed by executives.

What you just called a "law" is a judicial decision invalidating Constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
From Wikipedia: "An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new U.S. Congress funded the national debt, assumed state debts, created a national bank, and established an import tariff and whiskey tax."

Sounds like no libertarian that I know.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was a libertarian. I called him a "libtard" as a parody of the fact that some people on here tend to call everyone who expresses a view they disagree with a name like that.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Still arguing from authority, I see, since you have neither logic nor Constitution on your side.

The fact of the matter is that both Hamilton and Madison, who disagreed on just about everything, agreed that the enumeration of specific powers to the Congress in the Constitution meant that Congressional power was limited to only those areas, and that it defied logic (as it does) to enumerate powers if, as some falsely claim (you) Congressional powers have no limits.
Click to expand...

Technically correct, though you fail to mention that the enumerated powers that Hamilton believed in were far broader than those of Madison:

The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories:

* the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax;[15][16] and

* the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause]Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Thomes Jefferson, noted in one of his inaugural addresses that the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to spend federal money on public education. He therefore petitioned Congress to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution authorizing same. Congress agreed. Congress agreed that there was no authorization, and they neither passed an amendment nor spent the money.

Because Congressional power is limited.
Click to expand...

Congress also authorized the expenditure of federal funds on a Congressional minister on the same day that they enacted the First Amendment. Does that mean that all our future decisions on spending and religion have to be based around that contradictory fact?

You're arguing that someone else said up is down, so spilled drinks land on the ceiling. Since no one walks on the ceiling, it must be okay.

I can see what you're doing.
Click to expand...

If you think that's what I'm arguing, you very clearly can't.


You LOVE the false decision in Butler.
Click to expand...

Link?

And no, it's not the law.

Laws are written by legislatures and signed by executives.

What you just called a "law" is a judicial decision invalidating Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

And yet it's the law of the land, which is what I said. Sorry you don't like it and are doing your best to ignore reality.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Mass worker exodus probably won't happen, but when someone is training for a job, which will he eventually apply for? The one that pays more, of course.

You ignored my example about teen employment. Black teens now are twice as unemployed as white teens whereas previously they had roughly the same unemployment rate. This shows that (as expected) minimum wage is a barrier to entry into the job market. If your skills are not worth the minimum wage then why should you be hired? Most people don't make minimum wage, but if you don't have much education and can't get job experience then you're not going to make much money in the future. Guess which groups this hurts the most.
Click to expand...

If you don't have skills you shouldn't be hired. We should be investing in better education and training to ensure that all of our children, regardless of race, have the same opportuinity to become skilled laborers instead of squabling over the minimum wage. If minimum wage is preventing unskilled workers from being hired then I say keep it.
 
phattonez said:
You ignored my example about teen employment. Black teens now are twice as unemployed as white teens whereas previously they had roughly the same unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for this?

edit: Teenage unemployment figures are also very dubious. To be considered unemployed, you have to be seeking fulltime employment yet be unable to find it. The fact that huge portions of the teenage population are not seeking full time employment renders those numbers somewhat unreliable.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Do you have a link for this?

edit: Teenage unemployment figures are also very dubious. To be considered unemployed, you have to be seeking fulltime employment yet be unable to find it. The fact that huge portions of the teenage population are not seeking full time employment renders those numbers somewhat unreliable.
Click to expand...

What about people who are not teenagers, who also are seeking part-time employment. Such as, say, if one or more members of a household want part-time work to assist with finances?

If such persons cannot find a part-time position, does that also not count as being unemployed?
 
wbreese91 said:
If minimum wage is preventing unskilled workers from being hired then I say keep it.
Click to expand...

So you're happy with people with no skills being prevented from getting a job where they can get the skills to move up?
 
phattonez said:
So you're happy with people with no skills being prevented from getting a job where they can get the skills to move up?
Click to expand...

I think that in some places, there are buisnesses perfectly willing to train an unskilled or low skill person on the job, and pay them more (although only a little more) than minimum wage. Alot of those jobs do not appeal to people, however.
 
RightinNYC said:
Do you have a link for this?

edit: Teenage unemployment figures are also very dubious. To be considered unemployed, you have to be seeking fulltime employment yet be unable to find it. The fact that huge portions of the teenage population are not seeking full time employment renders those numbers somewhat unreliable.
Click to expand...

This is the closest I can find right now.

Minimum Wage: Yet Another GOP Retreat
 
The Mark said:
I think that in some places, there are buisnesses perfectly willing to train an unskilled or low skill person on the job, and pay them more (although only a little more) than minimum wage. Alot of those jobs do not appeal to people, however.
Click to expand...

A lot of times though it is just the experience that you need to get a higher paying job. If you're young and not good at school, you'll go get a job. But if you can't produce minimum wage, then you won't be hired, and then how do you even start off? You don't have the education or the experience. Minimum wage hurts the young and the poor.
 
phattonez said:
A lot of times though it is just the experience that you need to get a higher paying job. If you're young and not good at school, you'll go get a job. But if you can't produce minimum wage, then you won't be hired, and then how do you even start off? You don't have the education or the experience. Minimum wage hurts the young and the poor.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, to some extent.

I'm sure some get under the table payment for less than minimum wage.

And I was in disagreement with the minimum wage increase recently. $5 was a much better minimum wage IMO. Some may think even that was too high, but it at least was not today’s current $7.25.

For example, when I was younger (perhaps 14-16),and before the minimum wage increase, I worked a few days in a row during the summer at fairs for a food vendor. I was paid $5 an hour (or perhaps a bit more). This did not bother me in the least, as I was living at home, being supported by my parents, and the work was simply to earn a little extra money, not support a family. Increasing the minimum wage too much well eliminate some of these jobs, which in turn eliminates the availability for younger persons to gain experience in a workplace.

This, IMO, is bad.
 
phattonez said:
So you're happy with people with no skills being prevented from getting a job where they can get the skills to move up?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are plenty of opportuinities for training, people just need to take them. We need to emphasize education and provide equal ACCESS to said training. Once we do that, being unskilled is their own fault.
 
phattonez said:
A lot of times though it is just the experience that you need to get a higher paying job. If you're young and not good at school, you'll go get a job. But if you can't produce minimum wage, then you won't be hired, and then how do you even start off? You don't have the education or the experience. Minimum wage hurts the young and the poor.
Click to expand...

If a person cannot add value equivalent to $7/hour, that should tell them (and us) something.
 
RightinNYC said:
If a person cannot add value equivalent to $7/hour, that should tell them (and us) something.
Click to expand...

That they have no skills. If you can't get skills in school then the best place to get them is on the job. Why deny them that opportunity?
 
wbreese91 said:
Yes, there are plenty of opportuinities for training, people just need to take them. We need to emphasize education and provide equal ACCESS to said training. Once we do that, being unskilled is their own fault.
Click to expand...

Some just aren't cut out for school. You're just going to throw them to the ditch because their labor isn't worth minimum wage?
 
Funny how the states in trouble are California, Michigan, New York.....

Which way do those states lean? Hmmm.
 
wbreese91 said:
Yes, there are plenty of opportuinities for training, people just need to take them. We need to emphasize education and provide equal ACCESS to said training. Once we do that, being unskilled is their own fault.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. We should provide completely equal access to training.

Privatize the schools, and let the parents come up with the cash. So long as they pay tuition, they have access.

What can be more equal than that?
 
phattonez said:
That they have no skills.
Click to expand...

Or that they're incompetent/lazy. You don't need any particular "skills" to be able to add $7/hr of value.

The guy who walks my dog makes $20 and the woman who used to clean my apartment made $18. What "skills" were necessary for those jobs? Nothing more than honesty, reliability and the ability to do a job competently.

There are literally millions of jobs out there that don't require any specialized "skills."

If you can't get skills in school then the best place to get them is on the job. Why deny them that opportunity?
Click to expand...

How are they being denied this opportunity? Are they being forbidden from taking entry level jobs? Are they being banned from accepting job offers that they think are "beneath" them?
 
phattonez said:
Some just aren't cut out for school. You're just going to throw them to the ditch because their labor isn't worth minimum wage?
Click to expand...

If someone is not "cut out" for school and is unable to produce $7/hr worth of value, they should be thankful that they live in a society that no longer experiences natural selection.

That's just pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom