• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop?

Corporations are not people. Only people are people. Corporations are organizations.
 
Corporations are not people. Only people are people. Corporations are organizations.

Corporations are organizations that are run by people. If those people running the organizations want to use those organizations to push a political agenda, they should be able to. If you dont like it, dont work there. Businesses typically domt engage openly in politics because it isnt beneficial most of the time, but its their business and if they want to take that risk they should be able to.
 
I'm under no obligation to quit; the owner(s) are obligated to quit using me or other workers to form one opinion or belief.

Apparently they're not actually under any such obligation.

You seem to think they should be, but what you think really amounts to a hill of beans.

Maybe if the OWS crowd ever gets their **** together again you can suggest that they add this to the agenda and turn it into a national movement!!!

God knows that they didn't render themselves completely irrelevant last time by adopting every leftist agenda under the sun and completely watering down their message.
 
Corporations are organizations that are run by people. If those people running the organizations want to use those organizations to push a political agenda, they should be able to. If you dont like it, dont work there. Businesses typically domt engage openly in politics because it isnt beneficial most of the time, but its their business and if they want to take that risk they should be able to.

No argument here. I support freedom of association and freedom of speech for all people.
 
The most interesting thing about this debate for me is that the people who oppose it the most seem to miss the bigger picture. Before the Citizens United ruling wealthy Americans had a somewhat greater influence on the national political discourse because they, as individuals, had far more money to throw at politics than the average American. The Citizens United decision breaks down the wall that prohibited groups of individuals from political expression. While in the process the decision had to allow all associations equal first amendment protection (be they corporate, union or, in the case of CU, voluntary private associations). What CU does is give more power to the private citizen as it allows them to organize and affect government policy in many ways formerly proscribed by law.

But many people seem to want to inflict harm on their own personal liberties purely to spite "corporations", while not actually affecting the political influence of corporate leadership -- who individually have far more money to throw at politics than the average person -- in any meaningful way.
 
The most interesting thing about this debate for me is that the people who oppose it the most seem to miss the bigger picture. Before the Citizens United ruling wealthy Americans had a somewhat greater influence on the national political discourse because they, as individuals, had far more money to throw at politics than the average American. The Citizens United decision breaks down the wall that prohibited groups of individuals from political expression. While in the process the decision had to allow all associations equal first amendment protection (be they corporate, union or, in the case of CU, voluntary private associations). What CU does is give more power to the private citizen as it allows them to organize and affect government policy in many ways formerly proscribed by law.

But many people seem to want to inflict harm on their own personal liberties purely to spite "corporations", while not actually affecting the political influence of corporate leadership -- who individually have far more money to throw at politics than the average person -- in any meaningful way.


Most people have no idea what the Supreme Court actually ruled in Citizens United. Anyone who mindlessly bleats "they ruled corporations are people!!!" certainly does not.
 
I'm OK with the market setting wages and unskilled positions not making 50k/year - which is the "living wage" in my area.

Sounds like So Cal rents.

$1000+ a month.

So the minimum wage folks have about $240 a month for EVERYTHING else.
 
Sounds like So Cal rents.

$1000+ a month.

So the minimum wage folks have about $240 a month for EVERYTHING else.

If they choose to live alone.
 
Sounds like So Cal rents.

$1000+ a month.

So the minimum wage folks have about $240 a month for EVERYTHING else.


Which is why minimum wage was meant for teenagers so they can afford XBox. If your argument is that minimum wage should be high enough that a McDonald's cashier can afford to live alone in San Diego then I would like to give you a lesson in supply and demand.
 
If they choose to live alone.

Presuming they can find a place that will rent to more than one and they have rented enough money to have an adequate credit score.

So yeah, $750/month or so would allow survival most places. Better than that in some areas.

The real question is what jobs will be declared "unskilled" next. And what to do about all those things that MUST be done but simply don't generate adequate profits. Somebody has to clean the screens at the sewage treatment plant. Not profitable though. Minimum wage.

Hell, SOMEBODY has to run the registers for Walmart or they will make NO money.

Really can't wait until MORE positions are deemed unworthy of more than minimum wage. Only a matter of time.
 
Presuming they can find a place that will rent to more than one

Is that typically a problem? I've never heard of it being, but then, though I've rented in many different cities, I've never rented in SoCal. I would be floored if it's really hard to do.

I do know tons of people in LA with roommates, though.


and they have rented enough money to have an adequate credit score.

They aren't going to get an apartment by themselves if they don't, so it's a moot point.
 
Which is why minimum wage was meant for teenagers so they can afford XBox. If your argument is that minimum wage should be high enough that a McDonald's cashier can afford to live alone in San Diego then I would like to give you a lesson in supply and demand.


In N Out Burger pays well over minimum wage to start and provides benefits, so it CAN be done profitably.
 
No. Their interpretation of the Constitution. That is the point. You are indicating that their ruling is accurate. I pointed out that this is not always so. That's what.

Well, I disagree. I think your interpretation is wrong.
 
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.


My biggest problem with it is it in essence grants foreign nations the power to buy a limited level of instant US citizenship and influence US elections outcomes. Anyone with money can purchase stock in a publicly traded corporation; American, foreigner, friend or foe. Although its illegal to accept campaign contributions from a Middle Eastern Oil Sheik or member of the Communist Party of Cuba, under the present interpretation of the law all they would need to do is buy enough stock in a corporation and direct that the corporation make the campaign contribution. Then add to that the limits that are placed on personal contributions while corporations can give way more to finance US elections than regular citizens.
 
Is that typically a problem? I've never heard of it being, but then, though I've rented in many different cities, I've never rented in SoCal. I would be floored if it's really hard to do.

I do know tons of people in LA with roommates, though.




They aren't going to get an apartment by themselves if they don't, so it's a moot point.

I DO find it amusing that everybody is ok with the fact that renting others' money is a prerequisite for living in this country.

When I was a kid, credit was frowned upon except for cars and homes. Now if you don't use it you're ****ed.
 
In N Out Burger pays well over minimum wage to start and provides benefits, so it CAN be done profitably.

They're also minimalist on everything else. Kind of their claim to fame.
 
They're also minimalist on everything else. Kind of their claim to fame.

Not sure where they're more "minimalist" than McDonalds or Jack in the Box.

They towel drain their fries and are so busy that they have people taking orders in the parking lot during peak hours.

They also cut their own fries and their burgers are pressed in-house. At other places they come frozen in boxes.
 
Not sure where they're more "minimalist" than McDonalds or Jack in the Box.

They have a very limited menu.

I never said they weren't busy.
 
And yet people with more "complicated" jobs deserve less money?

You are free to pay your employees whatever you wish, as long as it is at least minimum wage. If you feel they deserve more, go for it.
 
And yet people with more "complicated" jobs deserve less money?

Oh, sure; that's exactly what I said. :roll:

No, the point was, they choose where to spend their money, and it's not on having a large menu.
 
You are free to pay your employees whatever you wish, as long as it is at least minimum wage. If you feel they deserve more, go for it.

Careful what you wish for.

"Engineer" is an $8/hr job on the global market.
 
Back
Top Bottom