MP Tribes Okay... One more because Charles' comments are fascinating to me.
"The libertarian Right expresses a preference for formal freedom - that is, minimal collective constraint on individual action - even if that formal freedom, as a result of the ineluctable concentration of wealth and power over time that it fosters, results in an authoritarian system and the near-absence of actual freedom for almost everyone. (It is never clear if the self-professed libertarian actually favors formal freedom at the expense of actual freedom, or just doesn't have a very well-developed capacity for analytical thought in realms of political economy.)Per my understanding it seems Charles wants to limit the Private Property freedoms for the good of the Majority. However I am pretty sure he thinks differently in most other trade offs. (ie LGBT rights, "Appearance" Profiling, Special Ed main streaming, etc) Thoughts?
The progressive Left expresses a preference for actual freedom. This means dismissing as irrelevant theoretical notions of absolute freedom and aiming at maximum freedom in a complex society, otherwise known as ordered freedom. Maximum freedom requires a great deal of collective constraint on individual action so that economic freedom is respected but not to the extent that the concentration of wealth is allowed to undermine the freedom of many.
The progressive Left doesn't value collective constraint (i.e., "regulations") as a good in itself, quite the opposite. The criterion is whether the collective constraint will have the net effect of increasing actual freedom." Charles
"It seems you are saying that we should be willing to sacrifice the individual freedoms of the few to maximize the freedom of the many.
Should we also apply that to police and security profiling? It would make the lines at the airport much shorter and eliminate some silly actions. (ie my ~70 year old Mom losing her cuticle scissors at the TSA checkpoint)
I understand that you would like to pick and choose who gets what freedoms based on your value set, however Libertarians typically don't seem to like to sacrifice the few for the many like you are suggesting. Be it on economic, security or in other areas." G2A
"""It seems you are saying that we should be willing to sacrifice the individual freedoms of the few to maximize the freedom of the many." I can't for the life of me figure out how you get that from my comment.
The basic value of our society is individual freedom. The role of the citizenry is to fill out its concept of "freedom" and then give it meaning through the decisions it makes about our laws and norms.
You say Libertarians prefer not to sacrifice the freedom of the few to maximize the freedom of the many. I conjecture that a thoughtful citizenry would prefer not to sacrifice the freedom of the many to maximize the freedom of the few.
My "value set" has nothing to do with it. Whatever a thoughtful, informed citizenry would decide would be what we've got. Unfortunately we don't have a thoughtful, informed citizenry (one result of freedom residing in the few), so it's all hypothetical." Charles
"As far as I know, everybody no matter their wealth has the freedom to learn and to vote. We provide free K-12 educations, many TV / Radio stations are free and there are many free libraries in which to access books and the internet. I know it is easier to blame the few that you likely disagree with, however the real problem is that many citizens do not take personal responsibility to learn about issues and practice their freedom by voting.
"a thoughtful citizenry would prefer not to sacrifice the freedom of the many to maximize the freedom of the few"
So do the thoughful citizenry and yourself support profiling by security personnel, it would definitely increase the freedom for most of us, reduce screening costs and reduce our wait times at airports, sporting events, etc. Of course those innocent people who seem more likely to be terrorists or smugglers won't be happy being singled out for sreenings." G2A
55 comments:
"So do the thoughful citizenry and yourself support profiling by security personnel"
so maybe they should profile white men or young white men. Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11
I really think that all of us should be subjected to similar security screening measures as profiling is ineffective and unfair.
As for the freedom discussion I didn't read it closely enough to have an opinion. I'll just throw in that I would like to have the freedom to obtain healthcare even if I'm poor and I favor extending this freedom to all Americans. Same for food and shelter. I believe FDR had something to say about this, perhaps using the phrase 4 freedoms (I didn't take the time to look into this.) I believe ensuring these freedoms might cost John higher taxes than he would prefer to pay.
"The libertarian Right expresses a preference for formal freedom - that is, minimal collective constraint on individual action - even if that formal freedom, as a result of the ineluctable concentration of wealth and power over time that it fosters, results in an authoritarian system and the near-absence of actual freedom for almost everyone."
In other words, they are content with people living under bridges as long as both rich and poor people are allowed to do it.
==Hiram
Sorry, but I have to reject the entire premise. Economic freedom will naturally result in some people having more than others. What matters is that all are equally free to get filthy rich (or to just get filthy if that's what they want). Governments role should be to limit only those cases where one person's freedom of action is harming another. In this case, if I get rich, how does that prevent you from getting rich also? The economy, contrary to most liberals'worldview, is not a zero-sum game.
And Laurie, you have the freedom to obtain healthcare right now, and so does everybody else, no matter how poor. The problem is that healthcare providers want to be paid for their services and indeed should have the freedom to practice their profession and to make money doing it. Sure, we could simply demand that doctors and hospitals give their services away free to everybody, and we had a system like this in this country once. It was used to grow cotton.
Laurie,
"I would like to have the freedom to obtain healthcare even if I'm poor and I favor extending this freedom to all Americans. Same for food and shelter."
As usual... You want to feed, shelter and provide healthcare to everyone whether they are trying or not at the expense of the other citizens... I'll never understand how that makes sense to you. We already do that for the most part and you want more.
In your world, why would people who are satisfied with little choose to work? I mean they would have food, healthcare and housing...
"You want to feed, shelter and provide healthcare to everyone whether they are trying or not..."
"I'll never understand how that makes sense to you."
Because it is the morally correct thing to do.
And remember, Jesus Christ himself offered health care at no charge to the ill.
Joel
Oh... The Bible game !!! I love this one... Sloth
I wonder... Was there any cost for Jesus to work miracles? If hospitals had no cost, your thought would make more sense. Unfortunately there are cost trade offs and behavioral impacts in our real world.
Here is an interesting story.
What is the morally correct thing to do for or to this Mom?
"Unfortunately there are cost trade offs and behavioral impacts in our real world."
What's not to love about a morality that places money (costs) above people?
As per your story:
She's not asking us to do anything for or to her. Why is it your business? Why is it only the woman's responsibility? Why are you not asking what is the correct thing to do for or to the fathers of the children?
She's foolish and has made many mistakes, therefore you think she and her children don't deserve a portion of the fruits of the wealthiest nation in the history of history.
Joel
I don't ask about the Fathers because the ProLife crowd supports the woman's Right to abortion. They don't support the Mother and Father's Right to abortion. With that huge Right comes some huge Responsibility.
I am happy to make the Father's pay child support, however ultimately it is the woman's right and responsibility to choose if she will have sex, if she will get pregnant, if she will deliver the baby and if she will give it up for adoption to someone who can afford to raise it properly.
With only one Father paying child support, I have to assume that this woman is already getting a healthy "portion of the fruits of the wealthiest nation..." at the expense of some other people in this nation.
So what I am hearing from you is that society and other citizens should accept and bear the negative consequences of the poor choices/actions that some of our citizens make/take. In this case the Mother chooses to have many children with many different men, and instead of punishing her for this behavior you want to reward her by passing the cost on to tax payers.
Personally, I like the idea of mandatory abortion or adoption if a woman gets pregnant while she is on welfare. She may choose to be a baby factory, however that does not mean society needs to let her screw up more children or pay her to do it.
A Different Yet Similar Story
"...ultimately it is the woman's right and responsibility to choose if she will have sex, if she will get pregnant..."
I have no time for such sexism. Despicable.
Joel
So... Are you willing to deny a woman an abortion until the baby's Father give his permission?
I mean if you want equal rights and responsibilities, it seems you should.
Again... With rights come responsibilities. Please remember what I also said. "I am happy to make the Fathers pay child support." Or letting the Father take the baby / joint custody.
By the way, how is this incorrect? It seems accurate to me unless she is raped.
"the woman's right and responsibility to choose if she will have sex, if she will get pregnant, if she will deliver the baby and if she will give it up for adoption"
Please study up before answering.
many people have jobs that don't pay them adequately to provide for their basic needs. I believe that more than 10% remain uninsured and it is hard to pay for both rent and food on minimum wage.
When I look down the road to the future of my students it does not look bright. I don't see any of them being self sufficient and it won't be for lack of trying in school. An IQ of 72 only takes one so far. So you would have these kids sick and hungry in the streets when they become adults?
You know my answer... If you want to raise wages at the lower end of the scale... Deport the 11,000,000 illegals that are helping to keep wages depressed for students like yours.
By the way, many of the low IQ folks are on Disability and other programs. I know a couple of them back out West.
"...how is this incorrect?"
You placed the entire onus on the woman. By any standard, that's obscenely sexist.
Joel
Do you want to give the woman all of the authority regarding the life and death of the fetus? If yes, does this make you sexist?
If the fetus is half the man's responsibility, will you allow him to stop the abortion?
You don't get to have it both ways. We are giving the Mother most of the power, rights and privelages. It seems you want to give her all this, and then just send the Father a bill for whatever she chooses to do. That seems sexist to me.
A different way of looking at this is FMEA. In an FMEA, we score risk based on severity, probability of occurence and detection. The goal is to then take actions to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
I participate in many higher risk activities: motorcycles, snowmobiles, 4 wheeler, downhill skiing, chain saws, hunting, etc. I enjoy these activities tremendously, and do these fully understanding that I am at risk of physical harm or death everytime I go out.
Now the reality is that if I am riding my motorcycle and Brenda is driving a dump truck down the same road, the probability / detection scores of an accident are probably similar for both of us. However the severity score for that accident will be much higher for me. I mean Brenda may not even feel the bump as she crushes me. Therefore if I want to stay safe and healthy it is much more important that I take responsibility for my safety. (ie boots, jacket, helmet, defensive driving, etc) It will not be Brenda's fault that I was riding my cycle in shorts, a T shirt and flip flops.
My point: the severity of having unprotected sex in our society are much worse for the woman, and the burden of protecting her health is up to her. Just as the burden of protecting his health is up to him.
The idea that either of them gets to blame the other for their irresponible actions frustrates me to no end. If the woman gets a disease or gets pregnant, it is her fault since she is responsible for her choices and her health. If a man gets a disease, it is his fault since he is responsible for his choices and his health. No one forced them to participate in that risky behavior without the appropriate safety gear.
Now if the woman does not "cure that health concern" and the baby is born, I whole heartedly agree that both the man and woman should bear the consequence of their risky behaviors equally. However it sure should not be the child(ren) or society (ie tax payers) who bears the burden of their high risk behavior. Thus my view that infants should be removed from people who obviously can not afford to care for them. Especially since there are so many more responsible households waiting to adopt.
I don't believe it is realistic (or desirable) to deport 11 million people. It seems much more feasible to me to raise the minimum wage and strengthen the safety net.
So you implied that you are OK with DCD people being provided services and support, but tough luck to everyone else. How do you know where to draw the line as to which people are deserving of food, shelter, and healthcare and which are not? Did I mention your answer of deport 11 million people and wait for wages to go up is not realistic and does nothing for millions of low income people right now?
Seems someone has already figured this out. SS Disability Page
You don't want a safety net... You want a safety hammock... A safety net is something where people don't know it is there except for a short period of time while it saves their lives. Then they climb off it and get back on the trapeze.
What you describe are permanent subsidies for some citizens that are paid for by others.
"Do you want to give the woman all of the authority regarding the life and death of the fetus? If yes, does this make you sexist?"
Yes. No one has a right to use another person's body without that person's permission. And that person has the autonomous right at any time to revoke any previously granted permission. That is not a sexist position. It applies to men and women alike.
Joel
Let's stay out of the abortion debate, but the argument is nonetheless correct. No one has the right to use another's body without permission. Therefore, if this woman wants me, the taxpayer, to foot the bill for her foolish behavior, she must ask my permission and conform to whatever conditions I put upon providing her with that aid. It would be absolutely immoral for her to steal my hard-earned cash otherwise, even with government as the intermediary.
"No one has a right to use another person's body without that person's permission." Well you are getting closer to agreeing that the woman needs to accept the responsibility for her decision and the resulting consequences.
I agree that the man and woman both enter into the "use of each other's body" of their own free will. Just like Brenda and I operating our vehicles on the highway. Are you then willing to accept that each participant is then responsible for their own physical safety during the perfectly voluntary mutual activity?
Or do you continue to insist that the man is responsible for the woman's health safety?
"that person has the autonomous right at any time to revoke any previously granted permission" Now if one party exits the partnership and seizes absolute control, shouldn't that void the initial agreement?
Imagine if two people started a company and after awhile one decided to seize control. How would that be comparable?
"It would be absolutely immoral for her to steal my hard-earned cash otherwise..."
Ah...straw men...they're so fun to burn.
Don't forget that the fathers of the children in the linked article above are men in uniform, paid by our tax dollars. Perhaps we can stipulate that they no longer receive paychecks because of their foolish decisions. It would be immoral.
John, I'm talking about the fetus. I can't believe that went over your head.
Joel
"Don't forget that the fathers of the children in the linked article above are men in uniform, paid by our tax dollars. "
Ah, the non-sequitur. So easily ignored. What does our voluntary pay for the services of these men in uniform have anything whatsoever to do with their personal conduct and failure to take responsibility for that? Now, if the woman had insisted on marriage, or birth control, or gone after child support after the fact, it would be a different situation. As it is, we voluntarily pay them for their service, and do NOT volunteer to pay her for.... what?
If you don't like the way welfare and such work, take it up with your representative government.
Our government makes the decision. They are our representatives. So...yes...we voluntarily support people.
Joel
There are two fallacies in your response. 1) When government decides to give money to people in exchange for not working, in order to cover the consequences of their poor decisions, and expecting nothing in return, they do NOT represent me. 2) My "support" is NOT voluntary. Try not paying your taxes sometime. As I see it, government welfare robs both sides-- one of compassion and the other of gratitude and human dignity. It's a poor trade that does nobody good.
"No one has a right to use another person's body without that person's permission"
"I'm talking about the fetus."
Now per the liberal view, the fetus is equivalent to a tumor and has as many rights. So of course, I would focus on the 2 adults who voluntarily entered into the high risk activity. Please remember that the "tumor" (fetus) has the DNA from both Parents and it took irresponsible behavior on the part of both people to create it.
Yet for some reason you say the woman "has the autonomous right at any time to revoke any previously granted permission" without any adverse consequences... And yet you want the man to pay the bills while not giving him any parental rights.
By the way, since she knows where they work it would be real easy for her to have their wages garnished. That is if a court has determined paternity and assigned him to pay child support.
My Parents have done that with renters who ditched before paying their bill.
"the fetus is equivalent to a tumor"
But I'm not saying that, and no one is saying that. That's a Republican misrepresentation.
In fact, we can treat the fetus as a person in this argument, and it holds water just as solidly. If a woman has the autonomy to say no to born people using her body, why does she not have the autonomy to say no to unborn people using her body?
Joel
Because to withdraw life support from an unborn person is murder.
That is why Roe v Wade defined the concept of viability. One week it is a tumor and the next it is an unborn person.
One day the Mom can have it scraped out, the next she can't.
Is it murder to withdraw life support from a born person?
Joel
Pretty much looks like it. Unless special circumstances are in place. (ie terminal, brain dead, etc)
The question remains: When does a person give up autonomous control?
Joel
Interesting how this abortion analogy keeps proving apt. Is it murder, attempted murder, assault or some other crime, or even immoral to withdraw "life support" (government welfare) from a welfare recipient? Is it less or more wrong to not provide alcoholics with alcohol than welfare to welfare queens?
Based on Roe v Wade, the woman has to put the life safing needs of the human baby before her own wants after the viability date unless their child threatens her life.
I don't think the Father gets any rights to their shared creation until their child is born. Mostly he is given a financial obligation if it can be proven that the child is his.
So a woman has autonomy except when the government says she doesn't.
And I thought you folks were FOR individual freedom.
Joel
So, the woman has autonomy. Fine. Then she made her bed, lay in it, conceived and birthed 5 kids, all on her own. Complete freedom. Now, suddenly, those kids are MY financial responsibility? Where's MY autonomy and freedom?
Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expect Conservatives to understand that.
Joel
Joel,
Why are you fighting Roe v Wade?
What is your rationale that a Mother should be able disconnect the life support from her 24+ week old viable baby purely at her discretion?
Where are the rights of the viable baby protected in your philosophy?
SCOTUS had to weigh the rights of the Mom against the rights of the Baby and they came up with the happy medium called viability. As the law sits, the baby has no rights until after it's heart has been beating for ~3 months...
Joel,
In summary, you want the woman to have all of the rights of being a Parent with none of the Responsibilities / Consequences.
You want her to be free to participate in poorly protected sex, be free to kill the resulting child up to the time of delivery, the freedom to have others pay for the costs of child birth, food, diapers, housing, healthcare, etc.
What do you think the negative consequence should be of a woman having poorly protected sex and conceiving a baby (or multiple babies)? If you want to reduce poverty and the achievement gap, you would help figure out how to stop poor single people from having kids.
We both a agree that the man should pay child support. As far as I know he does not get welfare for Fathering a child.
I found this statement by Bernie disturbing. "It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids."
The idea that he wants to set the target as one income per household is very sad. The reality is that it took 2 adults to make the baby(ies) and there should be 2 Parents to raise the child.
"BERNIE SANDERS:
Let me say this-- you know, no public policy doesn't have in some cases negative consequences. But at the end of the day what you have right now are millions of Americans working two or three jobs because that wages that they are earning are just too low. Real inflation accounted for wages has declined precipitously over the years. So I believe that in fact this country needs to move toward a living wage.
It is not a radical idea to say that if somebody works 40 hours a week that person should not be living in poverty. It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids. So I believe that over the next few years, not tomorrow, that over the next few years we have got to move the minimum wage to a living wage $15.00 bucks an hour. And I apologize to nobody."
"The idea that he wants to set the target as one income per household is very sad."
This is nonsense. It USED to be that families lived quite well off of one income...and the families were larger then. And with the cost of child care these days, it's hardly a benefit most times for both parents to be working.
If income had kept up with inflation, we wouldn't even be talking about this, but Corporate America has colluded with the Government to keep their taxes down while suppressing wages at the same time their employees have become more productive.
Joel
"If you want to reduce poverty and the achievement gap, you would help figure out how to stop poor single people from having kids."
Education. Of all kinds (including comprehensive sex education). Paid for by the government. But Conservatives are against that, too.
I'm all for fewer abortions and fewer children born into poverty. I disagree that banning abortion and putting up barriers to education will help achieve that goal.
Joel
I think your first comment is going to become my next post. It is a fascinating concept.
Regarding your second, I am all for mandatory birth control until an adult passes high school, passes a parenting skills test and proves they have the necessary resources to raise child. I am even happy if the government pays for the long acting birth control.
"Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expect Conservatives to understand that."
--Joel
I don't think poverty hurts me in the least, because I choose not to participate. I am hurt, however, by government's ham-fisted attempt to fix it. If you want to say the WAR on Poverty hurts everyone, I'll agree with you. Not only that, but Poverty is winning.
You know, the great liberal delusion is that they can fix problems with the wave of the magic wand of government control and government money. Indeed, the federal government could mandate $15/hour tomorrow. Then they could mandate that everybody had to have a job. Then they could raise the minwage to $100/hour and poverty would be gone! And then the fairies would dance around the unicorn poop.
Liberals think that they can write laws that defy the laws of physics, chemistry, economics and human nature.
Do you not think that people living in poverty are a severe drain on the productivity and economy of our country? Spending money to help them rise out of it, if done right, would see a huge ROI.
Tell me again why someone working 40 hours a week in the richest country in the history of history should be living in poverty.
If you think there is ANY good reason why this should happen, I have to question your morality.
You like to put everything in neat little boxes and categories and utterly fail at seeing that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE are interconnected. But you're not alone. It's a Conservative and Republican hallmark. It explains why they're the first to call for war, why they don't understand climate science, why they fight against health care and education for everyone, why they prefer tax cuts for the wealthy, but not the consumers who drive the economy. The list is long, but it all comes back to the failure to see web of connectedness.
Joel
Now I am a farm boy at heart so let me tell you about mice. If you want to prevent them from destroying your equipment/building, you must ensure there is no food source in the equipment or building. If there is free food and shelter, it attracts them and they procreate like crazy until the food source will not support them all. Now humans are not mice, however the basic theory holds.
For people to make good choices and take positive actions, there need to be rewards and negative consequences that encourage the desired behavior. This is why people who work hard in school, wait until they are older and married to have children, stay married, save and invest, etc make more money and have greater wealth.
What you desire is for the people who make the above noted good choices to share ever more of the rewards from their good choices with those who make bad choices. Which will reduce the negative consequences of making bad choices and reduce the rewards of making good choices.
How does this make sense to you?
The solution to reducing poverty and the achievement gap is to help the poor folks understand that children are expensive and a lot of work. Not to pay them when they have more children, thus promoting even more generational poverty. :-)
By the way, history shows that if you give American consumers more money... They will often spend it on foreign products and services items. Thus reducing their domestic incomes further...
Oh, Joel, your ability to put everything in neat little boxes exceeds even my own. Why are only Republicans warmongers, climate deniers, heartless and cruel, greedy and, basically, not real human beings like YOU are? I still want to know, how much income does one need to make before one ceases to be human and becomes one of "them"? How much of our income must we cede to GOVERNMENT (NOT to the poor who need it) before we are absolved of the crime of having taken responsibility for ourselves and succeeded to a modest degree? Because I have to tell you, if that's your scoring system, most Democrats fail miserably.
But lest you question my morality for not wanting hard-earned cash from my family stolen to preserve welfare queens in poverty, let me answer your first two questions.
Actually, the first one answers itself. Paying people to do nothing not only fails to create wealth, but actually detracts from the total wealth of the country. It is like eating the seed corn. But to suggest that government welfare helps people out of poverty and into productivity is simply blind to reality. The War on Poverty is over, and Poverty won. Since the start of this "war" we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars, yet we have the same or MORE people in poverty then we did when we started. That is total, abject and horrible failure, one of those failings being the moral one.
And the second one begs the question. Why should someone working 40 hours per week be in poverty? Let us just say it is not because they are working 40 hours per week. Why should that personal condition be someone else's (e.g. the taxpayer) problem or responsibility? Which is the moral stance, to provide for yourself or to steal from another? To offer true charity, or to be extorted?
Let's take a look at John's idea here in more specifics. There was a time when welfare was called "AFDC" or Aid to Families with Dependent Children-- widows and orphans, in other words. The premise was that with no "man in the house" there wasn't any income in the home and Momma and the kiddies were starving. This was government's way of keeping that from happening on a broad scale that, /allegedly/, private charity could not or would not do. Now, part of the "deal" was that, every so often, a "case worker" would show up at the door, ask how the family was doing, etc., and look to see if there WAS a man in the house, in which case the welfare check STOPPED. The kids were HIS responsibility, not the taxpayers'. LBJ ended that "oppressive" requirement.
At other times, reformers have offered such changes to welfare law as refusing added payments for children born while on welfare (on the theory there WAS a man in the house, sometime), or that mothers can only get welfare if they name the father of the baby (who can then be dunned for child support), that recipients sign up for work or job training, or that recipients be subject to random drug testing. In EVERY case, Democrats and liberals have fought against these modest reforms that would have placed some small responsibility on welfare recipients to help themselves a bit. It seems their intention is to INCREASE dependency on government rather than moving people OUT of poverty.
Keeping people in poverty while spending vast amounts of other people's money hardly seems the moral and freedom-enhancing thing to do.
"Why should that personal condition be someone else's (e.g. the taxpayer) problem or responsibility?"
I couldn't agree more. Walmart should be paying their employees enough that they don't need government assistance. Unfortunately, that is not the reality.
"...or that recipients be subject to random drug testing."
Which has been shown over and over and over to cost more than it saves. Aren't you FOR fiscal responsibility?
You are free to live in your own denial that you have no culpability for anything but your own success (never mind the society that allows and helps you to do it) and no moral duty to anyone but yourself.
Your selfishness is noted.
Enjoy your rewards.
Joel
Joel, you have no idea to whom you are speaking. I routinely give about 15% of my income to charity, obviously beyond what taxes I pay for government to waste on so-called "eliminating poverty." I have countless volunteer hours with the homeless, the hungry, the abused and the schools.
And you incorrectly answered the question, so let me rephrase. Why is it Walmart's responsibility to pay any particular wage whatsoever? If they offer a job at a certain wage and somebody is willing to take the job for that wage, what business is it of yours, much less government's, to DENY them the freedom to work? Why must people be shackled in poverty because government will not let them (or even require them to) work their way out of it? Really, I would like to understand how, even by your own admission, keeping people in poverty is helpful to anybody?
Joel,
I have to agree with Jerry, you probably just called 2 of the most charitable people you communicate with regularly "selfish"...
Now if you really want to raise wages in the USA, start working to deport the 11,000,000 illegal aliens who help keep wages down, and start telling everyone you know to Buy American.
If you artificially force wages up through minimum wages, it just makes everything more expensive in the USA... Therefore consumers will have even more incentive to buy products and services from overseas. And it will make it harder for "Made in America" companies to keep manufacturing here and to sell overseas. All bad...
Now for the big question, who funds the work credits, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc that the low income employees receive? The answer is "the people that pay income taxes". (ie the "wealthy")
If we raise the minimum wages, who is going to pay more everyday? The answer is everyone. (it is like a regressive tax)
Liberals seem to think that Walmart will pay more , keep the prices fixed and accept lower profits. Which of course makes no sense since us Investors would crucify them when we saw our 401Ks, IRAs, college funds, etc shrinking.
"If you artificially force wages up through minimum wages,..."
John, I am afraid that in pointing out the pitfalls inherent to raising the minimum wage by government fiat you have inadvertently destroyed your argument for buying American products. First you argue that we need to deport the 11 million illegal aliens who "keep wages down." But what you are pointing out is that American workers are overpriced compared to global competition. There are many workers in the world willing to work for less money and cost-conscious businesses will naturally seek them out, wherever they are. And it does not require minimum-wage laws to artificially force wages up. American workers are already overpaid compared to the world marketplace and buying American simply costs everybody more – that "regressive tax" you (quite correctly) describe.
The solution here isn't to "artificial" anything, but to get government out of the way and let American entrepreneurship succeed. There ARE American businesses that withstand for competition very well. They tend to be the ones that invest more, innovate more, and resist government and union demands better. With less government interference, American businesses can compete with anybody and everybody would "buy American" simply to save money.
Post a Comment