Beware that this new downgrade of our debt rating by S&P might be the new crisis that we have to deal with. Although it is a bit alarming, there is nothing to panic about. Japan was downgraded in 2001 and nothing calamitous came of it. The problem is, in our country where we have two main political parties that resort to demagoguery and political spin to lay blame at the other party’s feet, the facts get muted a bit. Our Founding Fathers had a distaste for political parties. Thomas Paine said:
It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.
George Washington in his farewell speech spoke omnisciently about political parties:
They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
I am in some ways at different times guilty as well. I identify myself as a Tea Party person and sometimes find myself defending positions that are supposedly those of the Tea Party even when I am not in total agreement with them. One feels that to give an inch in the debate, one gives a mile. We attack each others party as if there is nothing they support that we would support. This sort of reflexive thinking is flawed. When emotions run high, rationale runs low. We need to engage in conversations and attempt to find common ground. Concentrate on the things we can agree on and minimize the debate to only those things we do not agree on. The way the debates are currently structured, you see points being argued simply so they can later be compromised on. The stance was only made as a bargaining chip, as leverage in the argument. Only because one party felt one way about it, the other party simply took up the opposite stance as part of the political dance.
Other times, when one party is firmly in control, they ram their views down the other party’s throat. You will hear things said like “Elections have consequences” and “I won“. This creates long term hard feelings. One party is never always in power, and when the other takes over, these sorts of things are not forgotten nor forgiven. George Washington predicted as much and how it harms the country:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
We must take heed that our political debate has entered into a cycle that continues to harm our country. I called for a compromise in my opinion piece leading up to the finality of the most recent debt debate. Additional taxes should not have been a deal breaker, for it will be that in which the Left and their controlled media will blame the Tea Party for the downgrade of our debt rating. The Right will correctly claim it is the debt and that the reason for the downgrade is we have done nothing to show we will lower it. The Left says it is because there is not enough tax revenue. The Right will say there is too much spending. Both are correct.
The solution to raise tax revenue may be to moderately raise some taxes, certainly close many of the tax loopholes that have been created through lobbyists, and most definitely create more jobs in the private sector. If we raise taxes too much, this will be counterproductive to job creation. Job creation is one key to the fix. If the country has more people working, then more people will be paying taxes. I call for an end to the long running unemployment benefits. I can say with great certainty that there are many people out there not interested in working (and paying taxes) if they can sit at home and collect unemployment instead. We do them, and our country no favors by propping up this segment of our society. This is just one debate of many that needs to take place, but the debate will take a hard edge along political lines with all debates lined up on one side or the other. Nobody will be interested in solutions, just talking points and political victories.
Our political parties need to truly engage each other in this debate. Truly search for the long term solutions that will allow for the country to grow stronger. Individuals need to think individually and keep an open mind. Not fall in the sway of our individually pronounced political party affiliations. Keep in mind the words of Alexander Hamilton:
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties.
A very clear headed and concise essay. Many of the observations you made have been the pit of the bitterness that I have begun to feel towards the right. And so I have found myself turning against my own party, because often a stance is taken, and any rational discourse is responded to with derision.
And in this time, compromise is the word of the day. Many see it as a sign of weakness in themselves, precisely because they see it as a sign of weakness in their opponents (Ha, ha! We have them on the ropes now!) Only through productive and constructive compromise can we get anything done. This Nation is too large and too diverse to please everyone, to accomodate everyones wants and, more importantly, needs. Sacrifices need to be made, both by the rich and the poor. The ones that need the most need to be protected. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone with a need.
Yet, compromise doesn’t mean borrow from Peter to pay Paul. Taxes don’t need to be increased, although they may need to be collected a bit better. The tax code revisions may accomplish this. Most likely they will not. Unfortunately, those that stand to lose the most are the ones that can pay for the lobbyists. And the money needs to be spent better as well. Can the new super-committe accomplish this? We will see (or see not.)
While the word of the day may be compromise, the word of tomorrow should be partnership. Even Madison and Jefferson, both Nationalists that believed in individual liberty, recognized the need for a strong central government. Not a big one, but a strong one. Hamilton was one of the nation’s leading critics of the “feebleness” of the AOC. Yet the need for a strong federal government has now led to an over arching beast of mythic proportions. In an age were people are losing their jobs to automation, the government can’t pay for efficient automation because there are too many jobs. Is there a simple solution? Cold turkey may work for smokers, but can it work for the Nation? It took time to grow the governemnt to this size, and it will take time to shrink it as well.
This is a first step. A small, timid step, but its better than standing still.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I fear the super committee and the fact their talks will probably leave out some of the newest members of congress. And that it will take place behind closed doors. Some past committees have come up with some workable solutions, though. Often times just to be ignored.
I think the most important long term solution is education reform and the breaking of the public teachers unions. But, that is a blog for another time. 🙂
Interesting and thoughtful piece. I think we need to restructure the tax code. Long overdue. Dianne
The tax code is unfair in two ways: it punishes success on one hand, but the most successful are often able to circumvent it through the numerous loopholes.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
It’s kinda sad you expect quseitons like this out of trolls, but it’s sad that so many of the people who answer are obviously taking the question seriously.and how can you seriously say tax cuts for the rich in any positive light and maintain a straight face . even most Republicans at least pretend they want tax cuts for everyone. It wouldn’t really help much anyway, but at least they can sound like they care that way.
when prices rise poelpe tend to buy less and when they fall poelpe tend to buy more” yet the politicos, most especially the liberal politicos can’t seem to get a handle on that bit of reality…
Other times, when one party is firmly in control, they ram their views down the other party’s throat. You will hear things said like “Elections have consequences” and “I won“. This creates long term hard feelings.
It’s a really tough line to cut. On the one hand, it is antithetical to the nature of our republic that some busybody faction should enjoy such a complete monopoly that it can have everything it wants. On the other hand, if the views being rammed down the throat are things like…government should be responsive to the people…if there’s no change left in the kitty, let’s see what we can do to cut spending…it isn’t the business of government to make business profits anemic, or to make entrepreneurial efforts painful…at some point you need to ask, who exactly is nursing hard & hurt feelings over such things? What are they really after?
Shouldn’t a prerequisite for participating in the debates that matter, be something like — you need to be honest about your motives, and you shouldn’t be out to hurt people?
I’ve got some real problems with one of the major political parties (and some other, smaller problems with the other). But my beef really is the way the partisan divide has been formed. We shouldn’t be quibbling about left-wing right-wing stuff, we really need to be asking questions about wholly different things, like: If ever the day comes that our government can run in the black ever again, should that result in tax refunds or in paying down the debt? Should we keep negotiating with Kim-Jong, or nuke him into the ground? These are questions with more than one reasonable answer each — but they don’t get the attention they need because we’re too busy arguing about gay marriage.
I think the Founding Fathers anticipated that problem too.
Good points Morgan.
Social issues do tend to drown out the debate during the election campaigns. First priority is getting our country to run in the black and pay down the debt. A fair tax code minus loopholes will need to be a part of the solution to that, along with entitlement reform, more efficient military spending, and education reform too. I hope to tackle each of these issues in future writings.
Thanks for commenting.
I much prefer infortmaive articles like this to that high brow literature.
Elyza, Thanks for commenting. I enjoyed writing this piece. I plan to have time soon to write more.
Yes we all have a distaste for political parties, but sadly unless we get rid of unlimited money in campaigns and go with public funding, we will alway have parties and the good ideas will never get out, well unless you like corporate oligarchy. The Founders, who as I mentioned elsewhere, said alot of things, and then did the opposite, pretty speeches, letters and rants. They may have been good ideas but thats all they were.
One thing that strikes me as odd is you call for ending the long term unemployment, saying people aren’t going and getting jobs. What jobs, may I ask? You tell me where the jobs are and I’ll agree. The trouble is say you got $100 a week in a job, and you lost that job, with unemployment say you get $60 a week and when that ends if you are not working your getting zero. Now it seems to me and correct me if I am wrong, but Conservatives would rather that person starve and take a job paying $30 a week, just so he is working sooner, rather then getting a job that he is not losing his house over. I would rather have that money circulating and stimulating the economy then a person losing their home. The harsh reality is there are few jobs and they are crappy jobs, your not going to help anyone who worked at a factory and is now working at McDonald’s, it may sound good in Conservative land but thats not reality. you also again assume people are just trying to cheat the system somehow. I don’t know anyone who sat at home and collected unemployment, they looked for work, they were not on drugs, nor lazy. See your working, so quite frankly you really don’t comprehend the situation. When you walk into a place to get a job, there are 6 to 50 people competing against you. The odds are not in favor for getting us to low unemployment. Having the long term unemployment at least gives the private sector a chance to rebound, so the odds are a bit better, that if you want a job you can get it. The reality is if the only job you can get will still make you homeless, what are you gaining? What is society gaining? Unemployment is a small cost compared to almost anything in the budget and these types of programs are proven to be a better return then tax cuts for the top 2%.
Anon:If China calls in the loans, it wouldn’t maettr how much the government prints because the US dollar will not be worth anything. Printing more money will deflate the value of the dollar and will cause inflation on top of a slow growing economy. In other words, we would be screwed. And Hathor is correct in her assessment. You can listen Rand Paul about we are all in this together if you want, but you will be in for a rude awakening. Let us not forget that Reagan ended up raises taxes part of the reason was due to the increased defense spending. Here is a reality check, taxes will have to raised and spending reduced which means cuts in defense. Medicare and Social Security will need to changes to the current structure for it to remain solvent There is no such thing as a tax cut because it has be paid for and this is something that many American do not understand. You want your taxes cut, but want the same services. You cannot have it both ways. Here is a question for you, what is going to happen to those individuals who no longer getting unemployment benefits because they are unable to find jobs because hiring will take a while to occur? You are going to have an increase in poverty and homelessness because these people are unable to pay for rent, food, and other types of spending that have a direct affect on the GDP. Again this is a problem when you have political analysis giving their opinions than experts giving the public cogent information to help the American better understand what’s going on.I am being silly again, I am allowing facts and logic to sway my thinking.
Lourrane, thanks for commenting. ‘Tis true too many Americans want the many benefits and want others to pay for them. Which is why we see so much demonizing of the “rich”. Actually, cutting taxes across the board and simplifying our tax code would likely increase tax revenues. The reason being, historically tax revenue is about 18% of our GDP regardless of tax rates. Thus, the way to increase tax revenue is to grow the GDP. The best way to grow the GDP is to incentivize people to create value for others through labor, products, or services. Allowing them to keep more from the fruits of their labor is this incentive. Although I support a strong national defense, I do feel we can spend our money more efficiently in defense and save money. However, the costs incurred for our defense are bit overblown. Entitlements are the main drivers of our debt and deficits.
Yeah, the only trouble with us being screwed this way is China would never “call” in our debt, these Treasury bonds don’t work like that and it would hurt China just as badly. The next thing you get wrong is we have to cut Social Security which does not contribute one penny to the debt and is 100% till 2030 then is at 70% with an easy fix. Just demanding cuts does not fix a problem, we need to grow the economy and no business looks at the debt clock to figure out if there should be a next iPhone, or TV, or Ford car so to blame this on the debt is bogus.
David, thanks for reading.
I am certainly open to discussing campaign finance reform that would prevent corporations from donating money, as long as unions can not donate money either.
(David, as a reference point, I’ll have you know I was unemployed for a short stint in 2009 and never even filed for unemployment. It took me six weeks to get a new job. I work in upper management and I am responsible for about 100 employees. By the way, I had two people last week quit showing up to work and file for unemployment, although I’ve no intention in allowing them to collect it. I had work for them to do. I’ve had eleven other employees volunteer to be laid off because they’d rather not work right now and would prefer to collect unemployment.)
Conservatives do not wish for anyone to starve or be without shelter. We simply wish for people to have a sense of self-worth and have the joy of labor. It is about building a culture of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. If people lose their job and are unable to find employment and run into extreme financial difficulty, they will be forced to make some tough decisions. Sell some items they own, rent out a bedroom, sell a car, move in with friends or family. They will do everything they can to do anything they can to find work and make money to stop the financial slide. Then upon improving their lot again, they will more likely take precautions to build a nest egg for unknown future financial challenges so the loss of a job will not effect them as adversely in the future.
But, since we’ve shown people that they need not worry about taking such precautions, that we will “bail them out”, they are more likely to make the same mistakes all over again. To all of our detriment. Part of freedom is giving everyone an opportunity to succeed and to fail.
I can understand why you may think this, but the truth is I am positive they did not walk up to you and say “I quit getting less money from unemployment is better then working for you” I know this cause you are disqualified for unemployment if you quit. You must be laid off, or fired or cut through means not at the fault of the employee. You as an employer have a very low bar to put it to deny benefits through a claim.
It is wonderful you had the means to go 6 weeks with zero pay, I am sure most of those 100 employees of yours could not, the fact you did not collect any unemployment is not noble on your part, just like it is not a disgrace to collect unemployment INSURANCE when you need it.
Lastly you know what even if it were true what you said, do you know what they did and are doing now? I doubt it. Maybe one of them is trying to start a business, maybe one is moving and will begin work soon, maybe one is lazy, I really am not hugely concerned with other people’s business.
You want to clearly make unemployment a punishment and I quote “they will be forced to make some tough decisions. Sell some items they own, rent out a bedroom, sell a car, move in with friends or family.” Tell me why conservatives feel unless you are rich, you need to constantly be punished?
I also like how you think money is magical with a job and that everyone can “build a nest egg” try that on minimum wage. See it is not about them not worrying, it is about people living constantly on the edge, not even being able to cope with what should be simple expenses like car tune ups that create despair and spiral people down to make mistakes. We do not remove freedom if we have a safety net for people who fail, that is absurd. They still fail, we just think as a society kicking them and spitting on them when they fail is a bit cruel.
Disqualification from unemployment only occurs if the company follows through on making sure the person is disqualified. Many companies previously would only dispute an unemployment claim if they fired the person for probable cause. However, when the government began paying out unemployment for extended periods of time, it created an incentive to not work. This led to higher turnover and more difficulty in hiring replacement workers. Higher turnover in a company increases the rates a business has to pay for unemployment “insurance”. When companies began seeing this increased expense hit their income statements, they began fighting claims more consistently to keep their rates down.
There is no shame in collecting unemployment. People pay into the system and deserve to collect when unemployed if unemployed through no fault of their own. My statement about “tough decisions” has nothing to do with unemployment being a punishment. It has to do with the necessity of consequences for the decisions we make. If we are consistently bailed out from our poor decisions, there is little incentive for us to avoid poor decisions in the future.
I don’t expect someone to build a nest egg on minimum wage, and I don’t expect someone to spend their entire life making minimum wage (except for a few who simply are unable to acquire the skills necessary to earn more for which we should have a safety net for). Minimum wage (which should be abolished) is for entry level jobs where workers can develop skills to earn more money (economic mobility). Most everyone believes there needs to be safety nets in our society. These nets should be to help people bounce back. They should be temporary only and not a lifestyle. We need to remember that people make decisions at the margin and there are unintended consequences for government policies.
Just not true, the employer can deny benefits easy, it is then up to the claimant to appeal it, and the proof falls on the claimant. I don’t buy this concept about incentive not to work, no one I have ever know and the requirements make that “lazy” claim more difficult then you think, and at the very very worst it is still limited. You can argue it is too long but sooner rather then later you need work. Also if you want to risk getting caught in an audit you can be liable to repay benefits and like student loans you can’t escape that. As for someone making minimum wage even double that is still near poverty, so where does a nest egg come from when even double minimum wage is not enough today? People don’t make choices on the margin cause they like it, they do cause twice minimum wage is not even enough, and that is not the government.
Someone who was working and no longer is working and files for unemployment benefits will automatically receive those benefits unless the business they were working for deny them – which is easy to do. The person will then automatically not receive the benefits unless the person appeals the denial – which is easy to do. An unemployment hearing is then scheduled to determine whether the person will receive the benefits. There once was a time that the cost/benefit was so negligible that some businesses would not invest the time and resources to prepare for and attend the hearing. For the reasons I stated above, that has now changed. If the person quits and the business follows through to the hearing, the person is out of luck. If the person was fired, the company has to prove it had probable cause. The burden of proof is as much on the business, if not more, as it is on the former employee.
When I speak of the “margin”, I refer to marginal analysis and opportunity cost. If a person can be without a job and collect $150/week in unemployment, they may not feel inclined to work 40 hours a week and commute 30 minutes each way to earn $300. Especially if they can work the occasional side job under-the-table. I don’t blame them. The system encourages it in the short term, although it is a poor decision in the long term. When we extend the length of time one can collect benefits, we encourage it further.
When I was earning less money, I lived with my parents, then my grandparents, and then rented a room from friends. During these times, I paid down debt and saved money. At various points I worked multiple jobs. These were short term choices made with the long term picture in mind. We should encourage more long-term thinking. Making consequences more tangible in the short term will benefit people over the long term.
There are many things we can do to better help the poor in this country. One is to abolish the minimum wage. It just prices our least skilled out of the work force. Next we can have freedom of choice in education so our poor can have an opportunity to attend better schools.
Not sure what planet you live on, but almost no one can live on unemployment which is be definition is capped at $1500 a month or below the poverty line, that is the first problem. Second, you cannot turn down a job that pays more then the UI benefit by law. You must be looking for work, enrolled in work location program. Lastly, it is insurance, it is there for when you need it. Also most companies fight giving benefits, since the rules were changed in the 90s. There are far less “On the side” jobs then you think so if this is happening it is so small it is barely worth mentioning. Next, you clearly assume there are a flood of jobs out there in the same country that 20-600 applicant per job is common so not sure where these jobs are that people are just not looking for. Not everyone can live with parents and fuck me this is America and you know what we can do better then going backwards, I mean 100 years later and you are fine with Hoovervilles and living at home so the Walton family can have 7 billion more on their pile of money that is your damage. This is not the American dream. . As for what you did when you were young, you are taking allot for granted. One minimum wage went further when I was a kid then today. Many jobs you can get today pay the exact same amount as they did 20 years ago…so do things cost what they did 20 years ago? No, so your example is flawed by the stagnation of wages as I am sure you are likely older then even me. I imagine back when you were young people could still live off minimum wage, so I have to question your recollection of history. You keep thinking that poverty is always a choice and savings will help you, but from about $15 per hour and under, even saving 100% of your income, you can’t retire without Social Security. Do you really think you have options at 30k per year? You can’t have a family, you can’t own much. I don’t think you grasp the weight of it. So your answer is no minimum wage…Do you know what minimum wage is? I suspect not. Minimum wage is what someone pays you when they want to pay you even less, and when you value human labor and time well below the poverty level you don’t value workers, you want slaves. Before minimum wage people starved working 16 hour days…you think that is better? Oh, I bet you assume no company would pay less then they do now we are more civilized or something. Let me ask you is there any job or person that their labors are worth less then $7.25 per hour? When you devalue a man so much he is a slave and not a man. Do you really want a race to the bottom even more? Walmart gets about $1 million per store in government aid to the workers, cause Walmart figured out they could pay less and let the taxpayer pay the rest and you think lowering that cap to zero will help. Cut off the aid? Sure we could do that, I still don’t see the motive for Walmart to pay $16+ per hour, its not their problem. Is someone or some job worth a penny an hour? One Dollar? What is the bottom to you. I know people who are desperate will work for almost nothing as it becomes harder to find a livable wage. Choice in schools, by that I assume you mean paying religious schools to indoctrinate kids, ok fine. Private schools work for one reason SELECTION BIAS. They can right now refuse to take your kid even if you throw money at them. School choice means these private religious schools can pick and choose the best students and dump the rest in public schools that will get even less funding, cause the vouchers come from somewhere right? Yes they would come from education funding. So you will have elitist schools and they schools for the rest…great system if you are privileged enough to be accepted. I mean you are right a very fractional amount of poor people will get a better education, and all at the cost of ensuring 97% of students don’t get an education and work for well below the poverty line for the rest of their lives. See what we really need is to have taxes be fair, make minimum wage livable and scale to inflation at the least. Well funded schools for everyone, Free college so we invest in our future instead of making a few more billions today. We need to do everything we can to empower people, make them feel they are part of the system, like mandatory voting so they have skin in the game and our politicians work for the people and not someone like you. We need to do this now or repeat the horrors of the 1890s that you want to bring back. Government is not evil, government likely gave your family the means to a better life with things like a G.I Bill and home loans that made these things so cheap people built lives, not struggled to survive. We in America did not punish people, we uplifted them. You see a dollar going to anything but military and corporate handouts and you think we are being robbed, when Walmart and McDonald’s are the welfare queens Reagan mentioned but blamed the poor on. When you squeeze people hard enough they will break. Your system was done, it failed and crashed and nearly destroyed the country.
David, that would have been an entertaining rant if I hadn’t seen similar ones so many times before. My wisdom may make me seem older, but I’m still a young man. At a later time, I’ll pick out some of the fallacies of your rant and provide you with some truth in the form of blog posts. But, for now I’ll keep this brief and give you some words of advice.
Don’t make assumptions and then present arguments based on those assumptions. If you don’t know, ask. An example is your rant on school choice. Freedom of choice in education goes much further than private religious schools. It is about empowering families. Please research the issue in full. Or, you can wait for me to provide you the info.
Big businesses don’t mind minimum wage laws so much because it prices out the small businesses competing against them. Minimum wage laws hurt the least skilled among us pricing them out of the labor market preventing them the opportunity to develop the skills they need to earn more. Wages are the price for labor. Please research the price system and economics. Or, you can wait for me to put the information together for you.
You said, “Your system is done.” It is evident you don’t know what my system would be because the one we have is not it. This crony-socialism that we have in this country with all the corporate welfare and our government legislating winners and losers is not a system I endorse. Our government guaranteeing loans, bailing out businesses and banks, subsidizing industries, predatorily lending money to students shackling them with debt just so they can make a buck on the interest, creating a retirement program so they can steal the money from those who didn’t live long enough to collect, rewarding political allies with business grants, targeting political foes with the IRS… I can go on and on… that is no system that I endorse. We need to fight to tear down that system and rebuild one based on individual liberty, economic freedom, and personal responsibility. Remove the corrupt establishment politicians in both parties and replace them with people not of the “ruling class” and hold them to term limits.
I do sincerely appreciate your engagement in the discussion. I hope you concentrate on what is right and don’t get caught up in who is right.
Well it was either you old and forgot life or too young to know history, I guess it is the latter. Read up on the LABOR practices of the 1890s and see how it matches what you think is ideal, they are identical. Big business are the ones lobbing to end minimum wage. But I will ask you again, how low do you think wages should go? The continued take away is from you that $7.25 per hour is just too much money, if that was not too much money then the minimum wage would not be an issue. So what is the lowest wage that is fair?
Again the system you profess was the system in the 1890a, hate to break it to you but it is not new but is popular among the ultra rich like J.P Morgan, read history. You are also painfully unaware of what Capitalism, Socialism and free markets mean and that a pure system of anything is flawed. Are there flaws in the system? Yes but your fix is tried and failed. We need a system fair, with reasonable rules that are for employees and employers, not just employers. Business needs check and balances just like government and to think otherwise is foolish. This is why we need courts and minimum standards. Waiting for people to die in a fire to get a fire exit is not how we should be.
David, you amuse me. You again make ambiguous and ignorant statements like “your fix is tried and failed” when you don’t even know what my fix is. Are you making arguments based on false assumptions or just making things up?
A pure system of anything is flawed. I agree. When did I argue for a pure system?
Government is necessary to protect our rights. Reasonable rules must exist. When did I argue otherwise? We do need courts and I don’t recall ever making an argument that we should not.
I am well aware of history and realize that the current necessity of needing the pendulum to swing the other way will eventually likely result in needing it to swing back this way again. Balance always being sought and always slightly outside our grasp. That is to be expected when you have billions of people making individual decisions based on their unique situations. Which is why central planning will never work.
$7.25 is too much money for jobs that don’t exist because of it. It is not too much money for jobs that are already earning that. If you remove minimum wage, new jobs will be immediately created to provide services that are worth lower wages. The lowest wage that is fair is a wage that someone is willing to accept for a service to be rendered.
I can see that attempting to have a sincere discussion with you will remain unsuccessful, so I’ll (attempt) to let you have the last word. I do appreciate you visiting my blog and hope you will read my future postings. I plan to finish some I’ve been working on in the coming months when time permits.
Well it is pretty clear what you advocate, you really are not showing me you got a new radical idea no one has suggested or tried, so glad I amuse you that I know the MO. Ok tell me what socialism, communism is good, what elements, tell me what a free market means as well. As to minimum wage, wow did not think you’d admit there is work in the United States that is clearly worth even less then sub-poverty wages I am impressed at the level of greed there. I love how you promote the myth a fair wage is a wage someone is willing to accept…willing or desperate? Cause people will work for a dollar a day if that is the ONLY thing they can get, but I hardly call it willing. I assume you are for getting rid of unions, thus making each individual employee alone to bargain for better wages against they source of income…how did that work before unions? Well since you are absent in history, I will tell you. People got killed, fired for suggesting it. With no minimum the worker has no power individually and collectively most people of your ideology are against.
We can have a sincere discussion but you need to learn history and facts before you can make sense here. We had a time with all the elements you have so far defended. We had a time with no minimum wage, almost no regulations, no taxes (Income or corporate) and an education system based on the success of the school. It was the 1870s to 1930s it triggered two of the largest economic events in history of the US. The greatest wage disparity and the Great Depression, few think those were good things…ok Teabaggers, Libertarians and Ultra right wing John Birch Republicans.
I enjoy blogs like yours, they give me something to teach people what it means to be doomed to repeat history, to learn what complacency is, and why we should have mandatory voting so we all have skin in the game, cause people who vote against their best interest, like you will always vote.A thing that annoys me about liberals is they are clueless as to what your mission is. The right wing is at war, you treat it as a war and you want to win. Till Liberals learn this we will continue to spiral into the right wing like the last 30 years have done. No one can show me anything the GOP has done in the last 30 years to the benefit of the middle class but still our elections are only a few points apart in the major ones. Till liberals learn to fight a war too, they and all of us will lose, as the balance continues to shift right and extremists like you win.
David, if you don’t believe there is work worth less than “sub poverty” wages (our definition of poverty varies with others’ definition of poverty), then why not make the minimum wage $50/hour?
It is obvious you don’t really understand history as well as you’d like to make others believe. I’m confident once you do, you’ll agree with me more often than not. I strongly urge you to study basic economics and the price system and understand that wages are simply the cost of labor. Perhaps it is my experience of actually running a business and knowing what jobs I would like to create positions for, measuring the cost benefit, and absorbing them instead with existing employees that gives me my perspective.
I asked you repeatedly to quit making assumptions and then ranting an argument based on it. You look foolish and immature when you do. I do not like unions as they garner power and power corrupts. However, there is a need for them to exist and I will always support their ability to do so. The fact they can exist provides a balance to company executives who might not run a company with long term vision. I am against unions in the public sector and I support union voting by secret ballot only.