Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know. My post count is pretty impressive since i agitate the hell out of losers. Typically when losers can find nothing to make a point on they point to that in hopes that it will make me lighten up on their emotions.I wouldnt invest in any company. i only invest in myself.Wages can't go up artificially without a negative effect elsewhere. Liberals see everything backwards. They think wages are determined then companies make it work. Minimum wage is the attempt for government to control the economy. It isn't working.
The only way wages go up for everybody is when the economy does better. More money to go around, better pay to keep the help, etc. Liberal policies put the brakes on the economy and raising pay rates blindly can make some lose jobs, or businesses.
I agree but I am a liberal so that pretty much discredits parts of your post. Companies could make it work as long as they were making a profit. However, we know they wish to maximize their profits so they prefer to pay as little as possible.
Would you invest in a company that was just barely earning a profit? Of course not.
Workers are paid what they are worth to their employer. Why would you or I pay someone more than their value?
Of course workers are paid at maximum what they are worth to their employers. Most of the time a lot less. No i wouldnt pay anyone more than their current value unless I wanted to keep them and groom them for more future value.
dang s0n.........you need to get some real responsibilities in life.Just took a gander at that USMB post count total!!!
Wtf s0n?
I love you constitutional nuts....The people have a right to demand a decent wage from labor and if labor don't like it, they can take their companies and THEIR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS to China and stay the fuck there.A Call to Action
In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.
When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP fuck head!!
Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?
Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.
Yes. I am most assuredly a "constitutional nut", since it is the law of the land.
Your second point is lacking ... cognizance.
Laws written 2 million years ago, LOLOLO
You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.A Call to Action
In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.
When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP fuck head!!
Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?
Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.
Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw
Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.
So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.
I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.A Call to Action
In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.
When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP fuck head!!
Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?
Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.
Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw
Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.
So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.
I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
And the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.A Call to Action
In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.
When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP fuck head!!
Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?
Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.
Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw
Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.
So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.
I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
You brought it up and for that i thank you. Its amusing to watch people I emotionally injure use my post count to make themselves feel better. I know I have done a good days work fucking with their heads.Shit....we have people in here taking bows for making tens of thousands of posts per year on this messageboard!!!
And the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?
Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.
Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw
Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.
So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.
I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
Now if you want to try to argue why none of the 5 points are true...go ahead.
Minimum wage around the world......
America - $7.25
Denmark - $0
Italy - $0
Sweden - $0
Austria - $0
Germany, voted $8.50 just this year...was $0 before.
The Dred Scott Decision did not claim that the Constitution did not allow Blacks to be citizens, and later, post-14th amendment, laws forbade those of Asian ancestry to become citizens. The 13th and 14th amendments laid to rest part of the question, but under immigration and naturalization laws in 1870 and 1924 only Whites and African heritage could be U.S Citizens. Those laws weren't changed until the 1960's. So the part of Scott not being a citizen is not necessarily wrong at that time. (though I disagree with their conclusion because I believe that the alternate claim has more weight).And the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw
Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.
So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.
I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
Now if you want to try to argue why none of the 5 points are true...go ahead.
In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court gave a reasoned explanation why black people could not become citizens of the United States. Fortunately, those reasons were not Constitutional, and were shot down reasonably quickly. Those gentlemen were, of course, closer to the founding than we.
Saying a thing does not make it true.
The Dred Scott Decision did not claim that the Constitution did not allow Blacks to be citizensAnd the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.I see. The "paragraph that stretches".
"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".
None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
Now if you want to try to argue why none of the 5 points are true...go ahead.
In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court gave a reasoned explanation why black people could not become citizens of the United States. Fortunately, those reasons were not Constitutional, and were shot down reasonably quickly. Those gentlemen were, of course, closer to the founding than we.
Saying a thing does not make it true.
Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax. I disagree the minimum should be raised. I think taxes should go up to provide more funds to people making less than what would give them adequate housing, food, etc.
Right. How do you think that contradicts anything I wrote? And what part of the Constitution do you think the ruling violated?The Dred Scott Decision did not claim that the Constitution did not allow Blacks to be citizensAnd the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
Now if you want to try to argue why none of the 5 points are true...go ahead.
In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court gave a reasoned explanation why black people could not become citizens of the United States. Fortunately, those reasons were not Constitutional, and were shot down reasonably quickly. Those gentlemen were, of course, closer to the founding than we.
Saying a thing does not make it true.
The Court held that a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the U.S. and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.
I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax. I disagree the minimum should be raised. I think taxes should go up to provide more funds to people making less than what would give them adequate housing, food, etc.
I disagree strongly with this approach. Firstly, this is amounts to a wage subsidy to some of the largest most profitable companies in America. At present, every American taxpayer contributes about $2,500 to Walmart employees federal assistance.
Secondly, you have to pay federal employees to collect the tax, and still more federal employees to determine who should receive assistance, and still more employees to issue the checks and pay them.
It would be preferrable to have the employers raise the wages, cutting out the costs of collecting and redistributing the amount the poor are to receive. The wages paid by the employer are tax deductible, so the net cost to the employer is less than the employee is receiving. It's a win/win for everyone - the employee, the employer, and the taxpayers.
While I agree with your end point, you are assuming that raising the minimum wage will achieve that. The larger issue is that when the minimum is raised, it merely creates a new floor. It also creates wage compression because there is no corresponding raise to those currently making $15/hr or above. Those people with skills and/or education are now effectively earning the same minimum wage as unskilled/uneducated people.Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax. I disagree the minimum should be raised. I think taxes should go up to provide more funds to people making less than what would give them adequate housing, food, etc.
I disagree strongly with this approach. Firstly, this is amounts to a wage subsidy to some of the largest most profitable companies in America. At present, every American taxpayer contributes about $2,500 to Walmart employees federal assistance.
Secondly, you have to pay federal employees to collect the tax, and still more federal employees to determine who should receive assistance, and still more employees to issue the checks and pay them.
It would be preferrable to have the employers raise the wages, cutting out the costs of collecting and redistributing the amount the poor are to receive. The wages paid by the employer are tax deductible, so the net cost to the employer is less than the employee is receiving. It's a win/win for everyone - the employee, the employer, and the taxpayers.
To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
Bloviating double-talk. Better paying jobs are already here, employers won't fork over the cash.
No.
Just no.
Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
Bloviating double-talk. Better paying jobs are already here, employers won't fork over the cash.
What is with the weird walmat fixation among commies?WHAT?? In 1970 the minimum wage was $1.45/hr using the CPI that would be $8.86/hr in 2015 dollars. Where the hell does $23.50 come from?
Explain to me how costs for people hasn't risen 16 times since 1970.
What on earth does it matter that $5.9 billion equates to 1.2% of revenue? Revenue is calculated BEFORE costs or expenses are deducted. Your number also includes foreign revenue which should not be taxed by the US. It is still almost $6B!! What does Walmart get for that $6B?
Revenue and income are IRS terms meaning the same thing. The reason they are called different is due to the cost of revenue deduction.
In 2015, what percentage of your income did you pay in federal tax? I'm sure it's more than Walmart.
Attention....Walmart did not.create communism.
What is with the weird walmat fixation among commies?
Attention....Walmart did not.create communism
Walmart is the poster child for unbridled capitalism.
Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.
That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?
Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.
That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?
Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.
s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.
Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.
Bloviating double-talk. Better paying jobs are already here, employers won't fork over the cash.
Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.
Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?
Govt corruption is what hurts the middle class, and corruption swirls around all those garbage social policies. It goes beyond corruption to sheer evil intent.What is with the weird walmat fixation among commies?
Attention....Walmart did not.create communism.
What is with the weird walmat fixation among commies?
Attention....Walmart did not.create communism
Walmart is the poster child for unbridled capitalism.
Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.
That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?
Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.
That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?
Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.
s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.
s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.
wtf?
OK, I'll play.
My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?
Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.
