We're Lowering Your Wages

[editec]

editec wrote:


Interestingly, I think that this is the closest the two points have come in this conversation.

I think both sides believe that we live in a civil society and that our lives are bound together in numerous ways.

ACtually I'm not certain that most people really do understand that. The myth of the self made man is a very attractive myth for those who are well off and we've read this myth from players here. They really do believe they are self made men and woman. They think they owe this society nothing.

I think that both sides want people to receive fair wages for their work. I think that both sides respect people who do a hard day's work and do not want to see workers exploited.

I think they ought to say that once in a while then. I'm not reading it from our resident Misesians.

What I hear your side saying, Editec, is that employers should be required to pay wages such that all of their employees should be able to pay a monthly rent/mortgage payment, pay their bills, pay for healthcare, pay for childcare, etc.

Actually I've never said that because I don't believe that. But I can understand why you might think I believe that because I am often pointing out the bullshit of the other side of that debate.

Because the opposing view is NOT that we want workers to be starving and working for $1...but rather that some jobs do not merit a salary that would provide a mortgage/rent payment, utilities and bills payment, healthcare payment, etc. each month.

Yup, that's true.

And that mandating employers to pay such a wage for ALL of their employees would have negative consequences that could outweigh the supposed benefits of everyone making this "living wage."

Yup.

Why is it...that simply because I don't think McDonald's should be required to pay the 9th grader who takes my order should be able to afford an apartment, bills, and a healthcare plan on his salary...that I automatically hate the American worker and want McDonald's to be able to pay him $1 an hour?

Hate is a strong word. Indifference is probably more descriptive of the general attitude, I suspect.

I feel that this sort of rhetoric is mean-spirited nonsense...no one here has stated that they want people to do poorly...they have only questioned whether all full-time jobs should receive the kinds of salaries that you seem to be advocating.

You know, my complaints are more system than specific.

My point isn't that any particular set of skills should give you a life, but that if we do not create and environemtn where ENOUGH people can create a life by working, that this society will collapse udner the weight of its own greediness.

Mostly I try to address the grander issues.

And because I do, people who don't read me closely assume all sort of things about what I believe that are just not true.

I suppose I do the same to the libertarians, although I try and try to make my position clear, and tell them when I think that they are making sense, too.

But places like this like to rush to either side, to paint the opposition into corners where they do not reside.

Now I can point you to many posts here where our resident libetarians types say things like

Let them FAIL, they DESERVE TO FAIL.

And then they point out less than HALF the story and feel happy that they understand economics as well as the next 7th grader.

Unhappily when you begin to introduce FACTS FROM HISTORY which mitigate their arugments, what happens?

those get ignored.

Case in point DETRIOT.

The United States of American fucked over that industry.

Sure they were generous with their workers, and yes they made mistakes too.

But ignoring the YEARS OF LEGAL DUMPING THAT TOAYOTA AND THE REST GOT AWAY WITH is simply goofy.

Per usual I will keep pointing out that many American workers who are not making a living are not making a living because of GOVERNMENT POLICIES which devalued their worth to this society.

Address that point if you will and please stop faulting me for having opinions which I have NEVER expressed, okay?

You are not arguing with a liberal caracture, you are discussing complex issues with a man who is just as real as YOU are.

 

[Shogun]

First decide what you would actually like to debate. I am not a oppossed to a level of regulation where business is concerned, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

We are discussing whether it is the role of and whether it should be mandated that all businesses be required to pay a living wage.

Actually, since a minimum wage IS a regulation on business which is the direct result of the direction of unfettered capitalista business your rationalization fails.

Indeed, if you can't figure out why it IS the role of our government to maintain a labor standard, given the actual history of labor abuse, from wages to standardized fulltime hours to age restrictions then so be it.

 

[Bern80]

ACtually I'm not certain that most people really do understand that. The myth of the self made man is a very attractive myth for those who are well off and we've read this myth from players here. They really do believe they are self made men and woman. They think they owe this society nothing.



I think they ought to say that once in a while then. I'm not reading it from our resident Misesians.



Actually I've never said that because I don't believe that. But I can understand why you might think I believe that because I am often pointing out the bullshit of the other side of that debate.




Yup, that's true.




Yup.



Hate is a strong word. Indifference is probably more descriptive of the general attitude, I suspect.




You know, my complaints are more system than specific.

My point isn't that any particular set of skills should give you a life, but that if we do not create and environemtn where ENOUGH people can create a life by working, that this society will collapse udner the weight of its own greediness.

No one is reading you wrong editec. I'm not even clear on your position since you seemingly (by seemingly i mean an open invitation to point out that in fact their is not a contradiction) have a contradiction in this very post. You agreed that some jobs don't merit pay that would constitute a living wage did you not? You stated you weren't claiming all employers should pay a living wage did you not? Yet at the same time you say, "any particular skill set should give you a life".

So recap for me. You agreed that some jobs don't merit a cost of living wage which if you can't even meet cost of living at your current job obviously that isn't much of a life, yet all skill sets should give you a life, which would seemingly includes people who choose not to or can not extend their skills beyond flipping burgers. Can you see the confusion one might have?

 

[Skull Pilot]

tell that to the 7 million unemployed workers looking for jobs....

Unemployment has nothing to do with the argument. There will always be unemployment.

but what is the alternative skull? you paying the porch sweeper $1-$2 bucks an hour?

Substitute porch sweeper with whatever other position you like

here's a tip, get a neighbor's kid to sweep your porch for that kind of money, OR do it yourself, because it is not worth paying someone for it....those are choices you have....aren't they?

But I can't hire anyone under 16 legally and that 16 year old "deserves" a living wage does he not. After all how will he be able to go to college if the government doesn't tell me I have to pay him $12 an hour?

And you hit the problem of a "fair", "decent". "living" wage on the head.

Right now I can hire someone to sweep my porch, take out my trash, mow my lawn etc because in the time that it would take me to do all that, I can produce more income than I pay those guys. So they all have work and I have more free time to make my business more profitable or just have fun.

But if out of "fairness" the government makes all those services too expensive then I'll do them myself on weekends and evenings. They'll all be out of work and I'll be working doing those jobs I used to hire out. So instead of me paying people to work and using my time off to spend money eating ot or going to the movies or in some other way that provides capital to the economy. I'll mow my own lawn and take out my own trash and sweep my own porch.

Now that I think about it, I will fire all those guys because I just realized how much money I can save by doing it myself. After all fun and time off are overrated.

if it were not weighted in the employer's favor, then the free market could determine the wage necessary.....but it is NOT, and the employer has more power over the workers wage than the worker has when having to accept it.

How is it weighted in a small business owner's favor? What do I do go to all my competitors in a 50 mile radius and say,"Pay your employees less and I'll pay mine less so we can ALL make more money."?

It doesn't matter that our best people will quit and the level of service and quality of our products will suffer we're just in business to screw our employees right?

That is sheer idiocy and every business owner knows it.

when the employer AND the worker have a true level playing field in what is paid for the job, THEN the free market would work.

What is the definition of a "level playing field". Is it that everyone get paid 12 bucks an hour no matter what they do or how well they do it? Or is it everyone has an opportunity to prove to their employer that they are worth more to the company than someone else?

this is not the case with most minimum wage jobs because employers can just hire ILLEGALS at the lower amount they want to pay.... this is NOT a fair playing field.

Take that up with the government. I will NOT hire illegals because it is just that; illegal. Enforce the laws and fine businesses that hire illegals. I am all for it but don't tell me I have to pay more to hire someone just because someone else hire illegals and pays them less.

and again, are you saying you want me to pay for your full time employee to survive....by paying the EITC, and his medical, and food stamps, while you benefit from his work to make you profitable and have a good life?

why should i have to do that so you can have a business and make some money?

For one, you don't pay the EITC. The EITC is a tax credit given to lower income people, there is not a charge on your taxes unless you are referring to the alternative minimum tax.

And I am not asking you to support any of my employees. As I have said before the market dictates what I pay my people. No one I employ makes less than 14 an hour and some make 55 an hour. If I didn't pay what I pay or offer the benefits I offer or treat my people as well as I do, I would not retain quality people.

And if I am providing the venue for people I employ to make what I pay them, receive the benefits I give them, provide a pleasant place to work where they are respected and valued, and consider that my wife and I risked every penny we had to provide these things to our employees, shouldn't I be able to make a profit?

Is that evil?

that's my money as far as i am concerned....you are taking my money from me, so that you can pay someone $2 bucks an hour....that isn't fair either.

Neither I nor any business takes money from you. If you patronize a business, you do it voluntarily and you pay what you think is fair for a product or service.

How government takes more of your money is by requiring that business pay more for a position than it's worth to the market. THAT"S what costs you more.

i am in no way suggesting a living wage as the minimum wage, but i am suggesting that the minimum wage needs to be kept at a reasonable level so that the least amount of tax payer assistance has to be paid out to these workers of yours....

and that the minimum wage needs to be automatically tied in with a cost of living raise so that employers are not shocked by the amount the minimum wage has to go up every 5 years.

care

It doesn't matter what minimum wage is. A raise in minimum wage does not result in a raise in all wages. Do you think that raising the minimum wage from 7 to 8 an hour will mean the guy already making 10 an hour will make 11? All it will mean is that an employer will not hire a new person if that person cannot bring the business more than it costs to hire him. Personally, I'd rather not hire a new person and pay my existing employees more.

 

[editec]

No one is reading you wrong editec.

Oh what complete blather, as I will show you in this post.

Quote:
What I hear your side saying, Editec, is that employers should be required to pay wages such that all of their employees should be able to pay a monthly rent/mortgage payment, pay their bills, pay for healthcare, pay for childcare, etc.

Now I point the above out because this quote was directed at me as though I HAVE A SIDE. More, it is an abortion of my meaning on top of that, too

I'm not even clear on your position since you seemingly (by seemingly i mean an open invitation to point out that in fact their is not a contradiction) have a contradiction in this very post.

You're not clear because you cannot read for comprehension, Bern. Continue reading and hopefully you will realize why I say that.

You agreed that some jobs don't merit pay that would constitute a living wage did you not?

Of course.

You stated you weren't claiming all employers should pay a living wage did you not?

Yes

Yet at the same time you say, "any particular skill set should give you a life

".

See what you just did there?

You misquoted HALF a sentence out of entire sentence it took to express that complex though and then you demand that I defend a SENTENCE FRAGMENT.


What I wrote was the following:

My point isn't that any particular set of skills should give you a life, but that if we do not create and environemtn where ENOUGH people can create a life by working, that this society will collapse udner the weight of its own greediness.

Now, am I to assume you just did that intellectually dishonest thing because you are just too stupid to know how wrong it is?

Or do I assume you did that because you are hearing voices?

Those really ARE my only choices, you know. The words I am responsible for are there for you to read, after all, so there's no excuse for what you did.

So recap for me.

You're going to recap what I THINK? What amazing chutzpah!

You agreed that some jobs don't merit a cost of living wage which if you can't even meet cost of living at your current job obviously that isn't much of a life, yet all skill sets should give you a life, which would seemingly includes people who choose not to or do not extend beyond flipping burgers. Can you see the confusion one might have?

All I can see from the above RECAP is that you don't read very closely, or perhaps you think that people write entire sentences just because they're trying to fill up the page or something.

Which is it, Bern?

Let me try again, shall I?

Here is my thoughts on where our society is going and why it is going into the crapper, Bern.

They haven't changed a wit since I originally penned them

My point isn't that any particular set of skills should give you a life, but that if we do not create and environemtn where ENOUGH people can create a life by working, that this society will collapse udner the weight of its own greediness.

Not something other than that.

Not a goofy (and insultingly stupid) interpretation of that.

Not what you imagine I must mean by that.

This "let us rewrite what people say and then ask them to defend our rewritten hash of their original meaning" game won't wash with me, dude.

It is a sophomoric debating technique that would get your ass driven from any academic debate where you attempted to pass that off as rhetorically acceptable.

 

[user_name_guest]

We should pay our workers to the quality of labor they provide. Otherwise, if a cheap labor nation can provide the same quality of product for less, I'll choose to spend my money there. If i pay more in taxes, I'll invest less in the Big Three Auto Companies for example. Obviously people in here want to return to the 1970s where inflation and unemployment were kind to the Democrats.

 

[Bern80]

Oh what complete blather, as I will show you in this post.



Now I point the above out because this quote was directed at me as though I HAVE A SIDE. More, it is an abortion of my meaning on top of that, too




You're not clear because you cannot read for comprehension, Bern. Continue reading and hopefully you will realize why I say that.




Of course.



Yes


".

See what you just did there?

You misquoted HALF a sentence out of entire sentence it took to express that complex though and then you demand that I defend a SENTENCE FRAGMENT.


What I wrote was the following:



Now, am I to assume you just did that intellectually dishonest thing because you are just too stupid to know how wrong it is?

Or do I assume you did that because you are hearing voices?

Those really ARE my only choices, you know. The words I am responsible for are there for you to read, after all, so there's no excuse for what you did.



You're going to recap what I THINK? What amazing chutzpah!




All I can see from the above RECAP is that you don't read very closely, or perhaps you think that people write entire sentences just because they're trying to fill up the page or something.

Which is it, Bern?

Let me try again, shall I?

Here is my thoughts on where our society is going and why it is going into the crapper, Bern.

They haven't changed a wit since I originally penned them



Not something other than that.

Not a goofy (and insultingly stupid) interpretation of that.

Not what you imagine I must mean by that.

This "let us rewrite what people say and then ask them to defend our rewritten hash of their original meaning" game won't wash with me, dude.

It is a sophomoric debating technique that would get your ass driven from any academic debate where you attempted to pass that off as rhetorically acceptable.

I didn't rewrite what you said. I quoted you verbatim and understand it quite clearly. You said QUITE CLEARLY, 'any skills should give someone a life'. No I did not miss what you bolded after that the first time and no I did not take it out of context. The fact is what you wrote after that is irrelevant to that statement(but will be addressed momentarily anyway).

Taken by itself to me that is a contradiction because certain jobs, we have agreed do not warrant a living wage. If someone is trying to live of this wage that doesn't quite meet a living wage one could argue they don't have much of 'a life'. Enter Problem two:

What the hell is 'a life'? Could we be a little more vague? If we go down this road who is going to determine what constitutes 'a life'? And how about the presumption itself. Is flipping burgers really suppossed to provide 'a life' in your opinion?

Next part of your phrase:

'if we do not create an environement where ENOUGH people can create a life by working, that this society will collapse under the weight of its own greediness.'

Again this has nothing to do with the former. It doesn't qualify the 'any skill should give you a life' in any way and is rife with assumptions and presumptions. So much complexity in such a sort phrase. See I am inclined to agree that this society will collapse if not enough people make a living. It's the 'if we do not create an environment where ENOUGH people can create a life by working' that has problems.

Okay starting with 'if we do not create an environment': Since 'I' am part of 'we', why is it my responsibility to create this environment for someone else? As oppossed to what gets drilled in your head from an early age that YOU need to study hard in school so YOU can gain the skills to get a job where you EARN the money to provide for yourself ? Instead of us all working to create this environment for people why is it not your duty to gain the skills neccessary to succeed in the environment?

Finally, 'ENOUGH people can create a life by working'. So much vaguery in such few words ('a life' is still undefined) and ENOUGH is undefined as well. With 'enough' personally I have hard time seeing how this criteria isn't met already. Doing some research in part with the link below I came up with about 6% of the population that made minimum wage in 2005.

Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

I also came up with in this link, Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, persons making at or below $25k/yr (which is just a hair over the propossed by Mrs. RobISHI of $12/hr). So conversely approx. 65% of american's make over this arbitrarily defined living wage. Is that ENOUGH people?

You have to keep in mind also that those percentages don't tell the whole story. If one were the dishonest type, they would say, but that's 45% if the country earning less than a living wage. That's true except what percent of those making less than a living wage are actually trying live off it? So really our percentage to get a reasonable number to measure what ENOUGH is would have to include Americans earning more than the living wage AND American's making at or below the living wage BUT ARE NOT trying to live off it (i.e. supplemental income of some type, high school kids, etc.) THAT number is going to be something over 65%. Is that ENOUGH?

 

[Zoom-boing]

My father was in WW-II and fought against the Japanese. Needless to say, he never bought or drove a Japanese made car. That was a different time.

My dad is just like this too. He was in the army in training during WWII but the war ended before he was sent over. He has never in his life bought a foreign car. During WWII, Mitsubishi manufactured aircraft and they were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor and for kamakazi attacks. He view just on that brand alone was molded by the war. It was a very different time.

We currently drive a Honda and a Toyota. Between my husband and I we've owned a Cryslar New Yorker (no real complaints, it died of old age), Olds 98 - gas converted diesel (don't ask). Blew a head gasket and also fuel pump replacement among other problems, Mercury Grand Marquis - hated this car and it also had several engine problems including fuel pump, something (can't remember) that was a big expensive fix and a 'check engine light' due to the transmission going. Not even 100,000 miles on it; and a Mercury Mystique - it was a mistake from the get go. Problems galore.

This is our third Corolla (our first two were used. One got hit and we sold it and the other mysteriously died in a big bang and a puff of smoke. Like I said, it was used.) We've also had a Toyota pickup - rough ride but a great, reliable vehicle.

Our cars now are new (everything else we've ever owned was used so that may have factored into it's life expectancy). We are the 'buy it, own it, take care of it till it dies' type and so far we've had no problem with these two foreign cars. Unless American cars can hold up as well as these cars, I won't buy American. This is just based on my own personal experience.

 

[RodISHI]

Same question for you that I asked RodISHI:

Why is it someone elses responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for yourself?

It is not. As a social civilized community though we are each responsible for one another.

 

[Bern80]

It is not. As a social civilized community though we are each responsible for one another.

Okay so you answered my question, No. And you should know that the notion that we are all responsible to one another has implications that actually can be taken many ways as well. After all is not your responsiblity to the rest of society to not be a burden on it if you are perfectly capable of providing for yourself?

Based on what you said after that means one of two things. You either believe the greater responsibility to provide for yourself falls on you as oppossed to someone else or some other entity, or (and I'll need you to clarify) that in a society where you say we are all responsible for each other you are what? 50% responsible for yourself and society is 50% responsible for you?

To sum up this is the problem with your argument. The following are the basics we have agreed on or at least agreed upon what our positions are (again correct if I am mistaken)

You believe all businesses should be mandated to pay a living wage.

You have agreed by your last post, that you believe at the very least half of the responsibility for providing for yourself falls upon you.

Do you not see how the former negates the later? How can one be of the position that it is predominatly YOUR respsonsibilty to provide for yourself and also hold that it is the role of your employer to provide for you?

If you really want your mandated living wage, in such a system the bulk or even half of the responsibility for providing for yourself would no longer fall upon the individual. It would be on the business. The effort/responsibility of the individual to provide for themselves would be fairly minimal. All they would need to do is find a minimal skill job like McDonalds and keep it. You wouldn't even need to put forth the effort of educating yourself, as we know you don't need a highschool diploma to work at McDonalds or similarily unskilled job. Once you have the job you aren't really EARNING your living wage. You can't really earn what someone else has mandated must be provided to you regardless of your skills.

THAT is the the apparent contradiction I would like explained. How do you reconcile those two seeminly incongruous positions? Is there really not a contradiction there? If no explain why. Or have I mistated your positions? If so clarify.

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI wrote:


What exactly was the point of this post?

Mechanics are important? No offense...but DUH! Doesn't change the fact that requiring all businesses to pay all their mechanics a wage that would enable them to own a home, pay their bills, healthcare, childcare, etc. as you have stated they should would have negative consequences that all of us would have to deal with.

As to your "country club" comment...what exactly was the point of that other than to be needlessly smarmy and mean? I'm not quite sure how a teenager who earned minimum wage working as a lifeguard is suddenly a member of the "country club crowd" that doesn't go to the "poor places" to get their car fixed...but apparently you felt strongly enough about it to bring it up.

Call it smarmy if you like. It is your "country club" attitude.

 

[RodISHI]

Okay so you answered my question, No. I don't agree with rest of the above, but that can be a debate for another time.

Based on what you said after that means one of two things. You either believe the greater responsibility to provide for yourself falls on you as oppossed to someone else or some other entity, or (and I'll need you to clarify) that in a society where you say we are all responsible for each other you are what? 50% responsible for yourself and society is 50% responsible for you?

To sum up this is the problem with your argument. The following are the basics we have agreed on or at least agreed upon what our positions are (again correct if I am mistaken)

You believe all businesses should be mandated to pay a living wage.

You have agreed by your last post, that you believe at the very least half of the responsibility for providing for yourself falls upon you.

Do you not see how the former negates the later? If you really want your mandated living wage, in such a system the bulk or even half of the responsibility for providing for yourself would no longer fall upon the individual. It would be on the business. The effort/responsibility of the individual to provide for themselves would be fairly minimal. All they would need to do is find a minimal skill job like McDonalds and keep it. You wouldn't even need to put forth the effort of educating yourself, as we know you don't need a highschool diploma to work at McDonalds or similarily unskilled job.

THAT is the the apparent contradiction I would like explained How do you reconcile those two seeminly incongruous positions? Is there really not a contradiction there? If no explain why. Or I have mistated your positions? If so clarify.

Your whole precept Bern from what you have stated in so many of your post is that people are to be forced by poverty to make them do better.

In that your thinking and precepts are flawed.


I do not have a highschool diploma nor do I have a ged. I already said in an earlier post I left home when I was 11 years old. True story no bs.

You say that you had extreme disabling medical issues you dealt with as a child and still have these things you deal with. Regardless you still seem to have a very limited scope on which you are also using to base your precepts on. you have stated such that I am guilty of the same. To an extent this may be true. Yet only to an extent.

Let me tell you the final clincher why I left home. My family was great don't get me wrong. The thing is though they had a greed bug that they still even battle today. I knew this really sweet older lady. After suffering years of physical and mental abuse I had one friend that I adored. She was beautiful to me with her snow white hair and her brilliant blue eyes. The loved she showed me was more than many ever find. She had been actually very wealthy. Her and her husband one day went to my house because she wanted to meet my family. She told me she wanted to let my family know how special she thought that I was. My friend invited my mom to her house. My mom went to see her about a week later. My mom saw this beautiful old expensive oil painting hanging on one of my friends wall. My friend had told her she would do anything for me and asked my mom to tell me that. My mom had not been very friendly for many years to me as I had these atrocites in my dreams at night since I was five years olds. I would awake screaming from the nightmares and my mom would be shaking me and screaming at me to stop. now all the sudden she was traeting me different and to an eleven year olf that just did not make sense. Until she asked me to ask my very dear friend for that expensive painting on her wall, 'Heck she won't be needing it where she's going." I did not understand that my friend had already told my mom she was dieing. That is the very short version of why I moved out of home so young.

Since that day I left home don't think for one moment life was not a struggle and that for one minute I did not attempt to improve my life. In all these years I have watch the poor. As I have said earlier I have lived around them, I have worked with them and I have shared in the heartaches that they have suffered. So I do not speak about something that I do not have personal experience in. You have obviously studied economics. I have lived it. From a privileged child of the upper middleclass, to a pauper and a mother, to a very successful business owner, to a part time retired grandmother, to an owner of a business that had the potential of up to an easy two million a year with just five employees, to a woman with an eigth grade education and a very limited part of a year at college that had to study law to defend herself from the lawless.

Obama ran on a message of hope. You have no idea obviously how many out their that their hope never was or those that it has been dashed by the slave treatment of the lawless and the elite or I should say the wanna be elite and even the middleclass who really seem to think that they have earned those entitlements of higher wages. BTW I did not vote for Obama yet I do hope and pray he will actually do what needs to be done for the people of this country as far as insuring that the working class businesses and employees are provided for. I really doubt that will happen though because I do not think he will be willing to actually put a stop to the truly corrupt.

Now whether you have even consider it or not considered it. Your bland old arguments of it is simple economics does not fly. No one is an island of their own in this old world. Every living creature on the planet depends on something other than just their own efforts to survive. Some people will realize that and others will just bitch that, me, me, me, I, I, I, scenario. The ones who have that me, me, me, i, i, i, thing going they just fade away into the dust of the earth.

That all I have to say as far as answers go for you Bern. As it takes me to long to respond to your long post.

 

[sealybobo]

Based on what you said after that means one of two things. You either believe the greater responsibility to provide for yourself falls on you as oppossed to someone else or some other entity, or (and I'll need you to clarify) that in a society where you say we are all responsible for each other you are what? 50% responsible for yourself and society is 50% responsible for you?

You believe all businesses should be mandated to pay a living wage.

Here is what I think. I think you are swallowing what the CONS tell and not seeing what is really going on.

Here is a Thom Hartmann op ed. I edited it so maybe read the whole thing. Stop defending corporations and the rich. Stop it!!! You are doing yourself no good.

There is nothing "normal" about a nation having a middle class, even though it is vital to the survival of democracy.
As twenty-three years of conservative economic policies have now shown millions of Americans, what's "normal" in a "free and unfettered" economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class. If a nation wants a middle class, it must define it, desire it, and work to both create and keep it.
This is because a middle class is the creation of government participation (conservatives call it "interference") in the marketplace, by determining the rules of the game of business and of taxation, and by providing free public education to all.
"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."
As Jefferson realized, with no government "interference" by setting the rules of the game of business and fair taxation, there will be no middle class.
Conservatives believe what business does is business's business, and government should keep its nose out of it.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in 1997, Alan Greenspan sees one of his main jobs as being to maintain a high enough level of "worker insecurity" that employees won't demand pay raises and benefits increases, thus provoking "wage inflation." ("CEO inflation" is fine)
Thomas Jefferson -- if the government doesn't actively participate in regulating how the game of business is played, the middle class would vanish.
And to stimulate that domestic economy, we instituted progressive taxation, which gave workers more to spend, thus stimulating demand for more goods and services.
The elite cons who seem to truly believe that a CEO actually works 500 times harder than his employees (or is 500 times smarter).
But history shows that the third pillar of creating a middle class requires a modest control of how wealth is distributed. The richest, who benefit the most from our society, pay proportionately more, so the middle class can have home interest deductions, child tax credits, free public education, and health care. Progressive taxation has helped create every middle class in the First World, and without it the middle class will vanish (to Steve Forbes delight, apparently).
But as president, Reagan cut the top tax rate for billionaires from 70 percent to 28 percent, while effectively raising taxes on working people via the payroll tax and using inflation against a non-indexed tax system. It was another hit to the already-beginning-to-shrink middle class, to be followed by more "tax cut" bludgeons during the first three years of the W. Bush administration.
Nonetheless, a never-ending parade of conservative economists and commentators march through our living rooms daily via radio and TV, assuring us that it is good for American workers to go along with the Wal-Martization of America, accept lower pay and few benefits, and fear for their health, so multinational corporations can "level the playing field" for labor.
Unless we repeal Taft-Hartley; start enforcing the Sherman act, provide free education for Americans (and not just Iraqis); abandon WTO/GATT and NAFTA; restore progressive taxation (including on dividend income); force corporations to pay their fair share; and go back to selective tariffs to protect domestic industries and stop offshoring to explicitly bring home the ability for us to make our own clothes, furniture, autos, and electronics, the conservatives will have won and the middle class -- and, thus, democracy -- will lose.
The middle class is not a "normal" thing: it's just the core that holds together democracy and an
ThomHartmann.com - Scrooge & Marley, Inc. - The True Conservative Agenda

 

[Bern80]

Your whole precept Bern from what you have stated in so many of your post is that people are to be forced by poverty to make them do better.

In that your thinking and precepts are flawed.


I do not have a highschool diploma nor do I have a ged. I already said in an earlier post I left home when I was 11 years old. True story no bs.

You say that you had extreme disabling medical issues you dealt with as a child and still have these things you deal with. Regardless you still seem to have a very limited scope on which you are also using to base your precepts on. you have stated such that I am guilty of the same. To an extent this may be true. Yet only to an extent.

Let me tell you the final clincher why I left home. My family was great don't get me wrong. The thing is though they had a greed bug that they still even battle today. I knew this really sweet older lady. After suffering years of physical and mental abuse I had one friend that I adored. She was beautiful to me with her snow white hair and her brilliant blue eyes. The loved she showed me was more than many ever find. She had been actually very wealthy. Her and her husband one day went to my house because she wanted to meet my family. She told me she wanted to let my family know how special she thought that I was. My friend invited my mom to her house. My mom went to see her about a week later. My mom saw this beautiful old expensive oil painting hanging on one of my friends wall. My friend had told her she would do anything for me and asked my mom to tell me that. My mom had not been very friendly for many years to me as I had these atrocites in my dreams at night since I was five years olds. I would awake screaming from the nightmares and my mom would be shaking me and screaming at me to stop. now all the sudden she was traeting me different and to an eleven year olf that just did not make sense. Until she asked me to ask my very dear friend for that expensive painting on her wall, 'Heck she won't be needing it where she's going." I did not understand that my friend had already told my mom she was dieing. That is the very short version of why I moved out of home so young.

Since that day I left home don't think for one moment life was not a struggle and that for one minute I did not attempt to improve my life. In all these years I have watch the poor. As I have said earlier I have lived around them, I have worked with them and I have shared in the heartaches that they have suffered. So I do not speak about something that I do not have personal experience in. You have obviously studied economics. I have lived it. From a privileged child of the upper middleclass, to a pauper and a mother, to a very successful business owner, to a part time retired grandmother, to an owner of a business that had the potential of up to an easy two million a year with just five employees, to a woman with an eigth grade education and a very limited part of a year at college that had to study law to defend herself from the lawless.

Obama ran on a message of hope. You have no idea obviously how many out their that their hope never was or those that it has been dashed by the slave treatment of the lawless and the elite or I should say the wanna be elite and even the middleclass who really seem to think that they have earned those entitlements of higher wages. BTW I did not vote for Obama yet I do hope and pray he will actually do what needs to be done for the people of this country as far as insuring that the working class businesses and employees are provided for. I really doubt that will happen though because I do not think he will be willing to actually put a stop to the truly corrupt.

Now whether you have even consider it or not considered it. Your bland old arguments of it is simple economics does not fly. No one is an island of their own in this old world. Every living creature on the planet depends on something other than just their own efforts to survive. Some people will realize that and others will just bitch that, me, me, me, I, I, I, scenario. The ones who have that me, me, me, i, i, i, thing going they just fade away into the dust of the earth.

That all I have to say as far as answers go for you Bern. As it takes me to long to respond to your long post.

That's all sweet and wonderful, I wouldn't complain about the length of responding to my posts seeing as how in general despite quoting them you don't really respond to them at all. I never asked to hear your life story. When confronted with the contradictions of your arguments you change the subject just as you did here. I presumed nothing about you that you haven't told us all already, but you have presumed plenty of me. How can you claim to know what my precepts are? You've never asked. You simply assumed I have this every man for himself mentality. I have outright asked on several occasions that if I have misrepresented something to please correct it because I recognize there is no point in making an argument that is founded on an inaccurate premise.

All I wanted a response to was an apparent contradiction:

That on one hand you believe it is predominantly yourself who is responsible for providing for your needs or at least half your responsibility.

AND

That it should be mandated that business be responsible for providing a living wage, or stated another way providing for your needs.

That shouldn't take some long winded post to clear up. Either you hold two positions that CAN'T be held at the same and still have both of them be true in which you case your argument needs to be modified OR you don't actually believe one or both of those in the first place.

 

[Bern80]

Here is what I think. I think you are swallowing what the CONS tell and not seeing what is really going on.

You would be incorrect, my opinions on this are my own. Period.

Unfortuantely Mr. Hartman renders his point mute in the first couple sentences by claiming cons ran an unfettered free market. most everyone here agree such thing has never really existed in America. You may want to consider that one alternative is that reason we are seeing what we are seeing now, is not because of a failure of the free market, rather that we never really allowed such a thing to exist in the first place, thus we have no way knowing whether it would work, let alone that it is the cause of this problem.

Another fine of example of making on argument on the basis of a flawed premise.

 

[RodISHI]

All I wanted a response to was an apparent contradiction:

That on one hand you believe it is predominantly yourself who is responsible for providing for your needs.

AND

That it should be mandated that business be responsible for providing a living, or stated another way providing for your needs.

.

It's simple I gave you the answers in simple form. that was not acceptable to you. I will do it again with another word.


It is a civilized community.

Each person depends on the other for survival.

Business is no exception.

The ones who have businesses have certain obligations.

If the business is unwilling to realize that they do not belong in business.

It takes anothers labor to operate a business. These people are not slaves nor should they be treated as such.

 

[Gem]

RodISHI:

Call it smarmy if you like. It is your "country club" attitude.

Thank you for this post. I think it demonstrates quite clearly that you are unable to debate this issue without insulting those who have had the audacity to disagree with you.

As one who claims to be caring about all people, you certainly jump to mean and demeaning comments the minute someone questions you. I have never insulted you or demeaned you...or mocked whatever your financial status is (especially since I have no clue what your background is). You, however, have now made several comments about mine...and all because I dared to ask "What possible negative outcomes could come from paying every worker enough to provide a living wage."

Thanks...I think this has really cleared up who you are. I'll even positive rep you for it...because while I had been looking for examples of the possible negatives...I can stop now. You wouldn't listen. You have your agenda...and anyone who dares disagree is a "country club type" who couldn't possibly care about workers.

 

[sealybobo]

You would be incorrect, my opinions on this are my own. Period.

Unfortuantely Mr. Hartman renders his point mute in the first couple sentences by claiming cons ran an unfettered free market. most everyone here agree such thing has never really existed in America. You may want to consider that one alternative is that reason we are seeing what we are seeing now, is not because of a failure of the free market, rather that we never really allowed such a thing to exist in the first place, thus we have no way knowing whether it would work, let alone that it is the cause of this problem.

Another fine of example of making on argument on the basis of a flawed premise.

I've heard that one before. I talk to a Ron Paul/Libertarian here at work and he suggests the same thing you just said. THat we never really gave the free market a chance.

 

[sealybobo]

You would be incorrect, my opinions on this are my own. Period.

Unfortuantely Mr. Hartman renders his point mute in the first couple sentences by claiming cons ran an unfettered free market. most everyone here agree such thing has never really existed in America. You may want to consider that one alternative is that reason we are seeing what we are seeing now, is not because of a failure of the free market, rather that we never really allowed such a thing to exist in the first place, thus we have no way knowing whether it would work, let alone that it is the cause of this problem.

Another fine of example of making on argument on the basis of a flawed premise.

We have free trade with China, India, Mexico, Canada, etc. They even want a free trade deal with Columbia.

And what have we seen? American wages going down.

So please explain the process how if we make trade even more free, eventually it will help/preserve the American middle class.

How/when will our wages go up because of a totally free market?

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI:


Thank you for this post. I think it demonstrates quite clearly that you are unable to debate this issue without insulting those who have had the audacity to disagree with you.

As one who claims to be caring about all people, you certainly jump to mean and demeaning comments the minute someone questions you. I have never insulted you or demeaned you...or mocked whatever your financial status is (especially since I have no clue what your background is). You, however, have now made several comments about mine...and all because I dared to ask "What possible negative outcomes could come from paying every worker enough to provide a living wage."

Thanks...I think this has really cleared up who you are. I'll even positive rep you for it...because while I had been looking for examples of the possible negatives...I can stop now. You wouldn't listen. You have your agenda...and anyone who dares disagree is a "country club type" who couldn't possibly care about workers.

You are right I have no patience for anyone willing to cheat another or even allude to the fact that they would agree to cheat another out of a way to live. Regardless of how that may appear to you or anyone else.