Tired of the corruption in the LPO? Contact your county chair...
wes.w...@gmail.com
Jared Ellefson, Benton County - jelle...@juno.com
Wes Wagner, Clackamas County - wes.w...@gmail.com
Helen McDaniel, Clatsop County - mcdani...@msn.com
Robert Taylor, Coos County - lpo...@hotmail.com
Stan Howard, Deschutes County - sg...@cornell.edu
Shane Savoie, Josephine County - echelo...@yahoo.com
Ray Bledsaw, Lake County - gray...@gooselake.com
Don Smith, Multnomah County - don.s...@comcast.net
Paul Delaney, Polk County - des4...@msn.com
Stephen Pearson, Washington County - stephe...@yahoo.com
Andrew "Buck" Leckie, Wheeler County - lila...@hotmail.com
David Terry, Yamhill County - dav...@onlinemac.com
If you don't have a county chair, send a message to me
wes.w...@gmail.com - I will send it or read it to the State
Committee.
-Wes Wagner
r...@bendbroadband.com
The basic 2-dimensional modelof Libertarian philosophy that puts economic freedom on one side and personal freedom on the other with a scal of 0 to 1 at each corner is imo flawed. A 3rd factor should be included. Yes we live in a 3-d world not a 2-d world. And that 3rd factor is, on the same scale of 0 to 1 is the human condition being advanced?
Ideally we would consider when all three factor move towards 1 the idea, law, belief, practice, etc to be most Libertarian.
An example, in China American corporations are trying to prevent chinese labor from gaining much in the way of higher wages, benefits etc. This might be perfectly Libertarian from the perspective of personal freedom and economic freedom, but it is dispicable in terms of advancing the human condition.
rsk
Wes Wagner
-Wes
r...@bendbroadband.com
I'm missing the part about how American corporations exerting pressure on China to interfere with workers rights is Libertarian.
As I understand it economic "freedom" as currently interpreted by Libertarians means that companies are free to pay workers whatever they should want. (this assumes that the contract is fair to both parties). Person freedom, people should be allowed to earn their living however they may choose. The problem is, globalization was passed off as a means to raise the standard of living of the rest of the world, but then these globalists act in pefectly Libertarian ways to maintain THEIR profits at the expense of the worker.
Typical capitalist exploitation. And this is Libertarian how?
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
> I think this is actually handled well by libertarian ideas - people
> deserveto own the fruits of their own labor, even the chinese -
> ergo, if we allow
> someone else to treat them like slaves and pay them instead of the
> persondoing the labor (like say the chinese government) we are
> engaging in
> conspiracy to commit indentured servitude. We have thus violated the
> personal and economic freedom of the chinese people.
>
> -Wes
>
>
> On 10/20/06, r...@bendbroadband.com <r...@bendbroadband.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic 2-dimensional modelof Libertarian philosophy that puts
> economic> freedom on one side and personal freedom on the other
> with a scal of 0 to 1
> > at each corner is imo flawed. A 3rd factor should be included.
> Yes we live
> > in a 3-d world not a 2-d world. And that 3rd factor is, on the
> same scale
> > of 0 to 1 is the human condition being advanced?
> >
> > Ideally we would consider when all three factor move towards 1
> the idea,
> > law, belief, practice, etc to be most Libertarian.
> >
> > An example, in China American corporations are trying to prevent
> chinese> labor from gaining much in the way of higher wages,
> benefits etc. This
> > might be perfectly Libertarian from the perspective of personal
> freedom and
> > economic freedom, but it is dispicable in terms of advancing the
> human> condition.
> >
> > rsk
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from
> this group, send email to oregon_libertarian_discussion-
> unsub...@googlegroups.comFor more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/oregon_libertarian_discussion-~------
> ----~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
Wes Wagner
You are complicating the matter to try to make a point out of it, which is rhetorically disingenuous.
Trade with china and utilizing their workers who are employed by their government by force of arms is illegal. The argument need go no further than that.
jdougla...@gmail.com
China is illegal. Was that meant literally, or was it an assertion
that a Libertarian legal system would include laws against it?
DJ
r...@bendbroadband.com
and so considering what you just said - why wouldn't Libertarians be in favor of a global minimum wage ???
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
> My argument was that under our system of laws what we are doing is
> actuallyillegal and should be treated as such. Slavery and
Wes Wagner
The difference in China is that the workers do not work for the american company, they work for the chinese government as indentured servants. They have no choice. The american companies pay the chinese government for the labor, and the people get only what the government chooses to allow them to retain.
If we travel too far down the path of socialism in this country, we will wind up at the same destination.
The only way freedom works is if all people are all equally free.
r...@bendbroadband.com
you honestly think that we need to protect the right of people to choose to be paid LESS?
That's your strong point?
Big trend in that direction is there? People wanting LESS money.
Maybe it's just me but could cite at least ONE example of someone that has expressed an interest in being paid less? If not you are protecting the right of an imaginary person, and maybe we should protect the REAL people first, is all I'm saying.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
> No, because that would violate the rights of a person to sell their
> laborfor less if they so chose.
>
> The difference in China is that the workers do not work for the
> americancompany, they work for the chinese government as indentured
> servants. They
> have no choice. The american companies pay the chinese government
> for the
> labor, and the people get only what the government chooses to allow
> them to
> retain.
>
> If we travel too far down the path of socialism in this country, we
> willwind up at the same destination.
r...@bendbroadband.com
I was just debating how a global minimum wage is or is not a libertarian ideal.
Wes Wagner
-Wes
jdougla...@gmail.com
different people, i.e. the poor people whose work is worth barely more
than the minimum wage, or the poorer people whose work is worth less
than the minimum wage.
DJ
Wes Wagner
-Wes Wagner
jdougla...@gmail.com
poorer group - those who have nothing to offer for trade that is
valuable enough to meet the "minimum wage". If there is a minimum
wage, then they are f%^&$d.
RSK, it appears you want to "protect" the less poor people. Am I
misreading your posts?
DJ
Wes Wagner
-Wes
jdougla...@gmail.com
connotations for you. Sorry.
I meant to focus the discussion on the topic of the pros and cons of a
minimum wage, which seems to be the topic on which RSK is focussed.
All laws reduce individual freedom, but not all laws are bad, right?
-------
Addressing one question at a time, I'd like to contemplate the minimum
wage only.
RSK's prior post rightly indicates that it is absurd to think that
people want the choice to make less.
My point is that those who want to "protect" the poor ought to be
against the minimum wage because people exist who are not capable of
doing anything that is tradeable at the minimum wage. A minimum wage
law takes away the freedom of those people to trade their goods and
services. They want to make MORE.
Can we only discuss the impact of a minimum wage in this thread and
start another thread about any other topic?
r...@bendbroadband.com
I am in favor of the minimum wage and I think there should be a global minimum wage as well in order to provide a base wage for all workers and to protect them from being unfairly exploited. I am for a level playing field so businesses have no incentive to chase the cheapest labor. I think the root of which goes back to slavery. Businesses should be moving towards paying people fairly instead of how close to zero (slavery) they can get away with.
----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
r...@bendbroadband.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
> Well who else would minimum wage be designed to "protect" ? People
> who'swork is worth more than minimum wage can ask for a higher rate
> of pay.
>
> -Wes Wagner
>
>
> On 10/20/06, jdougla...@gmail.com <jdougla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:>
> >
> > It seems like the two of you are talking about protecting the
> rights of
> > different people, i.e. the poor people whose work is worth barely
> more> than the minimum wage, or the poorer people whose work is
> worth less
> > than the minimum wage.
> >
> > DJ
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
Wes Wagner
You should be less focused on getting an arbitrary ruling that someone has to provide more currency to another individual for their labor (which will only cause the currency to actually become worth less due to economic influences) and rather focus on liberating those people. If they are free to leave their country, their demands for real earnings will rise.
The issue we have with "slave labor forces" are really a result of colonial trade agreements that allow us to utilize the labors of people without establishing truly free markets. If you correct that problem, the other problems which are a result of it, star to go away.
-Wes
r...@bendbroadband.com
Minimum wage is the topic of discussion
r...@bendbroadband.com
I'll give you that point... but it's not an either or situation. There's no reason why workers can't be protected and paid appropriately AND be free.
If what you say is true, then paying below market wages should = deflation but it doesn't does it? It = more profits
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
> Many of the behaviors and unintended consequences of policy you
> observe are
> the result of a system that permits the free flow of capital
> without the
> free flow of people. If you free the people, the economic option to
> relocatecauses localized wage disparities to diminish and approach
> equilibrium. (at
> least net aggregate purchasing power)
>
> You should be less focused on getting an arbitrary ruling that
> someone has
> to provide more currency to another individual for their labor
> (which will
> only cause the currency to actually become worth less due to economic
> influences) and rather focus on liberating those people. If they
> are free to
> leave their country, their demands for real earnings will rise.
>
> The issue we have with "slave labor forces" are really a result of
> colonialtrade agreements that allow us to utilize the labors of
> people without
> establishing truly free markets. If you correct that problem, the
> otherproblems which are a result of it, star to go away.
jdougla...@gmail.com
I'm trying to comprehend what you wrote, but I am stuck, even
theoretically.
Let's say that I am tired Saturday morning from working my ass off all
week, but hey, I have a mortgage and kids' college to pay for..., so
I'll do it myself rather than pay $6 or more.
Four starving guys knock on the door and offer to cut the grass for $6
to $2. Each one has a starving family and needs the money.
Should the law be that I can't hire any of them....
DJ
Wes Wagner
If an employer cannot find someone willing to work for $4 because $4 will not allow a person to survive, they will have to raise their wage. If they can't afford to raise their wage, then they will raise their prices.
Also, an employer cannot pay arbitrarily low wages forever - otherwise competitors will offer their most skilled employees better wages, steal them away and outcompete them with higher productivity.
I just don't see the economic reality where any party benefits form a minimum wage. It seems it would just cause employers to invest in more capital equipment to improve worker efficiency which just might put a % of the workers out of a job onto the streets...
-Wes
r...@bendbroadband.com
I don't believe it's considered employment when someone mows your lawn it could be done by what I guess you would consider a private contractor. Here is Libertarian paradise. You and that 13 yr old with a lawn mower wanting to earn a little spending money. You and him get together on a price, he mows your lawn. It may not be minimum wage and that is legal now so what was your point?
----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
jdougla...@gmail.com
scenario. Let's not confuse the issue with under-age workers since no
minors knocked on my door and offered to mow the grass....
You seem to be saying that it is ok for me personally to pay an adult
less than minimum wage to mow my grass.
Did I understand you correctly?
DJ
Richard Burke
Hope you are well. I read your email and know what you are talking about. Yes, corporations sometimes act like jerks. And, in and of itself, this does not advance the human condition. But there are mitigating factors that I think need to be considered, even though they are not emotionally satisfying.
I think that there are steps that a nation goes through which simply cannot be avoided when it shifts it's economy from agrarian to industrial, and industrial to post-industrial. These shifts cause displacement and upheaval, and have in every society that has experienced them - including our own. We had the sweat shop abuses when we became an industrial country, and a large wave of unemployment when we became a post-industrial country.
Before corporations invested in China, I would argue that opportunities for the average chinese person consisted of working in a state enterprise or working in a rice field. Without outside investment, the only capital in the nation came from the state and those who controlled it. State capitalism of this sort may be an option, but Hitler showed us that this doesn't do much for the human condition either.
Corporations come into countries like China because the labor is cheap and the regulations are minimal. If you raise costs associated with labor (benefits, min. wage, ect), their incentive to invest is reduced. Because such a huge upfront investment is necessary, they want profitability. That is all they care about. We can bitch and moan all we want that they are not advancing the human condition through such attitutes, and we'd be right. But as right as we would be, they would not invest and our chinese person would still be working in a rice patty.
As flawed as it is, the fact is (and it is a fact) that in the big picture, corporate investment has created new opportunities for people in third world countries that didn't exist before. Corporations may be reaping their profits by exploiting an undeveloped economy, but as the economies of these nations develop, people start demanding rights and they eventually get them.
There are already strong attempts at unionizing and regulating labor in China and other countries. Yes, the corporations fight this because that is what they do. As was the case in the United States, corporate resistance will occasionally set this cause back. But they will not be able to stop this process in the end.
If corporations didn't invest, there would be no labor issues to fight over. The mere fact that there are issues to fight over is evidence that development is taking place - the question becomes one of distributing wealth that could never have existed if the corporations had not invested initially because of financially attractive conditions.
And so the economies will evolve. Like ours has. I don't know of a single nation with a large population has been able to avoid this process. The only countries that have seemed to pull this off are ones with low populations and rich resources (like Sweeden).
And nobody has put forward a plan that regulates wages, benefits, and other worker issues in a developing third world country which hasn't scared the bejesus out of corporations causing them to invest elsewhere. Do you have one? At least under the current model, most chinese people have options other than the rice patties. Their overall wealth is rising, and the institutions that support labor are beginning to evolve.
I have no problem with bashing corporations. But those who do so have a moral obligation to come up with an alternate model which does not destroy incentives for investment and risk necessary for the creation of wealth. So far, I haven't heard one yet. Do you know one?
What do you think?
Happy to not be working in a field,
Richard
r...@bendbroadband.com
Whether or not you could pay someone less than the minimum wage vs. should is a whole nother argument. You could walk out of a resturant and not leave a tip or just tip 5%. Should you?
----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
r...@bendbroadband.com
Hey Richard
Okay here's me go at it.
What is needed is a 180 degree paradigm shift. It's time we once and forall realize that the slavery model (how little can I pay someone to get their labor from them) needs to be replaced by what I would call the (you ain't seen nuttin yet) move.
The capital of the future is less and less physical labor, instead of seeking to exploit people, people will be considered the ultimate resource. The next big leaps forward in technology is going to come from ideas. What needs to be challenged is the basic assumption that people are fundamentally lazy . The flip side of that is that everyone has something to contribute. Looking at people like creative resources that they are instead of like some form of animal is the paradigm shift. Instead of how much can the corporation extract for how little, how much will people produce when they are adequately nurtured?
I'll say again, the capital of the future is ideas!
To think that only the rich or even the better educated are the total source of this future capital is way wrong.
Too abstract???
I would start by moving to the 32-hour 4-day work week ASAP.
As we are in the post-industrial world there really has been no consideration as to whether the 40-hour work week is abritrarily causing unemployment.
The truth is we don't need as many people and this trend looks to continue.
The intresting thing is what would happen to the economy if everyone had one more day to themselves. I suggest that it would be VERY beneficial to the economy in many ways.
In otherwords the model of the future will be polar opposite to today's how much can i get for how little thinking to what is this human resource capable of producing under optimal conditions.
Now tell me how un-liberarian this is, or surprise me and tell me how Libertarian it is.
rsk
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Burke <rpb...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:21 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
> Howdy, Randy!
>
> Hope you are well. I read your email and know what you are talking
> about.Yes, corporations sometimes act like jerks. And, in and of
> itself, this
> does not advance the human condition. But there are mitigating
> factors that
> I think need to be considered, even though they are not emotionally
> satisfying.
>
> I think that there are steps that a nation goes through which
> simply cannot
> be avoided when it shifts it's economy from agrarian to industrial,
> andindustrial to post-industrial. These shifts cause displacement and
> upheaval, and have in every society that has experienced them -
> includingour own. We had the sweat shop abuses when we became an
> industrial country,
> and a large wave of unemployment when we became a post-industrial
> country.
> Before corporations invested in China, I would argue that
> opportunities for
> the average chinese person consisted of working in a state
> enterprise or
> working in a rice field. Without outside investment, the only
> capital in
> the nation came from the state and those who controlled it. State
> capitalism of this sort may be an option, but Hitler showed us that
> thisdoesn't do much for the human condition either.
>
> Corporations come into countries like China because the labor is
> cheap and
> the regulations are minimal. If you raise costs associated with labor
> (benefits, min. wage, ect), their incentive to invest is reduced.
> Becausesuch a huge upfront investment is necessary, they want
> profitability. That
> is all they care about. We can bitch and moan all we want that
> they are not
> advancing the human condition through such attitutes, and we'd be
> right.But as right as we would be, they would not invest and our
> chinese person
> would still be working in a rice patty.
>
> As flawed as it is, the fact is (and it is a fact) that in the big
> picture,corporate investment has created new opportunities for
> people in third world
> countries that didn't exist before. Corporations may be reaping their
> profits by exploiting an undeveloped economy, but as the economies
> of these
> nations develop, people start demanding rights and they eventually
> get them.
>
> There are already strong attempts at unionizing and regulating
> labor in
> China and other countries. Yes, the corporations fight this
> because that is
> what they do. As was the case in the United States, corporate
> resistancewill occasionally set this cause back. But they will not
> be able to stop
> this process in the end.
>
> If corporations didn't invest, there would be no labor issues to fight
> over. The mere fact that there are issues to fight over is
> evidence that
> development is taking place - the question becomes one of distributing
> wealth that could never have existed if the corporations had not
> investedinitially because of financially attractive conditions.
>
> And so the economies will evolve. Like ours has. I don't know of
> a single
> nation with a large population has been able to avoid this process.
> The
> only countries that have seemed to pull this off are ones with low
> populations and rich resources (like Sweeden).
>
> And nobody has put forward a plan that regulates wages, benefits,
> and other
> worker issues in a developing third world country which hasn't
> scared the
> bejesus out of corporations causing them to invest elsewhere. Do
> you have
> one? At least under the current model, most chinese people have
> optionsother than the rice patties. Their overall wealth is
> rising, and the
> institutions that support labor are beginning to evolve.
>
> I have no problem with bashing corporations. But those who do so
> have a
> moral obligation to come up with an alternate model which does not
> destroyincentives for investment and risk necessary for the
r...@bendbroadband.com
(more)
If today's capitalism looks something like this: how small a grain of sand must we use to deposit into a oyster for the purpose of getting a pearl. Not bad. It's served us pretty well these 100+ years. I'm saying the next thinking will be more agrarian in that the fundamental question that businesses will be asking themselves is - what are the characteristics of the is the optimal grain for the oyster to produce the most valuable pearl. We should know full well from agriculutral theories that what is needed is not the minimum for optimal production but the ideal. Are humans less than the fields of corn?
When human beings are considered as a kind of crop, a resource, instead of the tractor, we'll be thinking about what is optimal and ideal instead of minimums and the extreme of how close to slavery society will tolerate.
One way is the future, the other is the past.
jdougla...@gmail.com
not one person ought to pay another less than a decreed "minimum wage".
Back to my hypothetical example, if the cost to me is the minimum wage,
then I will choose to mow the yard myself.
If nobody is willing to mow my yard for less than minimum wage, then
fine. It's "no deal" because all parties chose not to trade. I'm
satisfied mowing my own yard and saving the cash, and the other parties
are satisfied by spending their time doing something else that they
value more.
On the other hand, let's assume that at least one person exists who
would PREFER to mow my yard and receive 1/2 minimum wage rather than
not mow my yard and receive zero.
Which alternative is better for both parties, for me to do it myself
(due to law or conscience, as you suggested) or to trade with him at
the price that we each value our own labor?
I think that both parties are better off if they reach a deal that was
their own choice, instead of being prohibited from making a deal.
It seems that your position is that all workers whose work is not worth
the minimum wage should not be allowed to trade their labor.
DJ
P.S. I chose yard mowing for no particular reason. Any product or
service that a buyer would chose not to pay for could be substituted.
rimch...@juno.com
already.80 plus percent of doctors' calls do not require full medical
certification - but you are required to see someone supervised by
someone with that certification. That's the law. We have a shortage of
GPs in this country vs other industrialized country. Those who get
certified as mds have mountains of debt and have to charge enough to
live and repay this debt. We have similar government mandates for other
professionals. You can't seek redress - even if you are self educated
in legal matters particular to your case - without a paid attorney for
most matters. Insurance companies operate in a world where the bar to
entry is set way high for monetary resources and consumers are
"protected" from unhealthy price competitions "for their own good".
Same with banks and utility companies. You can't operate a profitable
business without paying through the nose for these mandated services -
and there is no free market.
The difference is that when you are sick your choice of getting no
health care is not really a choice: you are priced out of the market.
And most health care unions don't care about consumers as long as they
get theirs. And those unions contribute heavily to our legisliars who
further restrict competition and mandate services to the public. When
you "choose" to mow your own lawn that is a good thing. When you
"choose" to not get your ailments diagnosed and treated that is not
nearly as good a thing.
r...@bendbroadband.com
You will find other countries have more engineers too and many things that are done by technicians in this country are done by engineers in other countries.
Does our present system create deliberate shortages in order to defend a certain standard of living for those who are allowed by the system in? I think YES.
And yet - I was just thinking yesterday that our military and especially those in combat ought to be VERY WELL PAID. I'm talking $60/hr 24/7. (or more) Imagine - do 4 years in the military 2 in combat and come home with 1/4-1/2 million in the bank. Is a wariior less important to our society than the guy drilling teeth?
I know of someone just graduated from dental school and joingin private practice with someone who says after the first year he should be able to net $250,000/yr. Is that a minimum wage? Not exactly, but sort of.
----- Original Message -----
From: rimch...@juno.com
Date: Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:25 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> Problem is that we have minimum wage statutes for professionals
> already.80 plus percent of doctors' calls do not require full medical
> certification - but you are required to see someone supervised by
> someone with that certification. That's the law. We have a shortage of
> GPs in this country vs other industrialized country. Those who get
> certified as mds have mountains of debt and have to charge enough to
> live and repay this debt. We have similar government mandates for
> otherprofessionals. You can't seek redress - even if you are self
> educatedin legal matters particular to your case - without a paid
> attorney for
> most matters. Insurance companies operate in a world where the bar to
> entry is set way high for monetary resources and consumers are
> "protected" from unhealthy price competitions "for their own good".
> Same with banks and utility companies. You can't operate a profitable
> business without paying through the nose for these mandated
> services -
> and there is no free market.
> The difference is that when you are sick your choice of getting no
> health care is not really a choice: you are priced out of the market.
> And most health care unions don't care about consumers as long as they
> get theirs. And those unions contribute heavily to our legisliars who
> further restrict competition and mandate services to the public. When
> you "choose" to mow your own lawn that is a good thing. When you
> "choose" to not get your ailments diagnosed and treated that is not
> nearly as good a thing.
>
>
r...@bendbroadband.com
----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> I think your question gets to the crux of the issue, i.e. whether or
> not one person ought to pay another less than a decreed "minimum
> wage".
> Back to my hypothetical example, if the cost to me is the minimum
> wage,then I will choose to mow the yard myself.
>
> If nobody is willing to mow my yard for less than minimum wage, then
> fine. It's "no deal" because all parties chose not to trade. I'm
> satisfied mowing my own yard and saving the cash, and the other
> partiesare satisfied by spending their time doing something else
> that they
> value more.
>
> On the other hand, let's assume that at least one person exists who
> would PREFER to mow my yard and receive 1/2 minimum wage rather than
> not mow my yard and receive zero.
>
> Which alternative is better for both parties, for me to do it myself
> (due to law or conscience, as you suggested) or to trade with him at
> the price that we each value our own labor?
>
> I think that both parties are better off if they reach a deal that was
> their own choice, instead of being prohibited from making a deal.
>
> It seems that your position is that all workers whose work is not
> worththe minimum wage should not be allowed to trade their labor.
>
> DJ
>
> P.S. I chose yard mowing for no particular reason. Any product or
> service that a buyer would chose not to pay for could be substituted.
>
>
jdougla...@gmail.com
I willingly paid $3 for a gallon of vinegar tonight.
I paid nothing for the gallons of air that I breathed.
Does that mean that vinegar is more important than air?
The vinegar costs more because air is abundant (unless you are scuba
diving).
-------
Government intervention limits our supply of medicine and health care,
driving the price up.
My wife was perfectly capable of recognizing a sinus infection in our
kids, yet we were restricted from buying antibiotics without a
prescription.
-------
Many military people are not in it for the money. If fewer were
altruistic, then they would command higher pay than dentists. (I
suspect that the inherent job satisfaction of filling a cavity is lower
than the job satisfaction of serving your country. I also suspect that
highly trained mercenaries make as much as a dentist.)
-------
The prices at which hundreds of millions of people are willing to
exchange billions of goods and services ought not to be the concern of
a federal government....
DJ
data_lieutenant
how little you understand of the principle of inalienable personal
liberty.
"Wes
you honestly think that we need to protect the right of people to
choose to be paid LESS?
That's your strong point?
Big trend in that direction is there? People wanting LESS money."
Millions of illegal migrant "People wanting LESS money" (than the
existing federal/state/local minimum wages) sneak into the United
States, especially across the border with Mexico, every year. Since
there is an economic demand for more such inexpensive labor than can be
covered with current immigration quotas, these workers' other option is
to have no job at all in the United States (because being here
illegally, it's more difficult to be hired by employers who respect the
minimum wage laws - the only employers of illegal immigrants tend not
to report their own income to the IRS, and selectively obey other
laws). The main flaw in your argument is the premise that wanting a
thing makes it so. Nobody would object to being paid more than we're
worth, but I, for one, have had very little luck finding an employer
willing to pay me more than the value my labor provides to the Company.
Why do you want the government to have the right to force YOU to pay
YOUR employees more than the value of their labor? Or, are you coming
at this issue from another ANGLE?
When in doubt, on any political issue, you can identify the Libertarian
position as the one which equally respects the rights of all involved
parties, and does not consider uninvolved parties.
jdougla...@gmail.com
If you personally go onto ebay and bid for a product, your bid is the
highest, and you purchase the product, then have you enslaved the
seller? If you form a corporation and do the same thing, does that
somehow change things?
>From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, slavery is "involuntary
subjection to another".
All buyers (a person, a partnership, a corporation, a union, a
government or any other entity) try to buy low, and all sellers try to
sell high. The concept of "value" is only meaningful when the buyers
and sellers agree to transact a deal. By doing so, they create the
"fair price". Any other price is by definition, "not fair".
DJ
pave...@gmail.com
even consider minimum wage law. This is an area that government must
stay clear off.
If you really want to play with the idea consider this. Your business
needs 30 workers for various positions. You can't pay them less then
Min in fact you have to pay them exact the same amount per month and
you can't fire them (no matter what) and they will go for A MONTH of
vacation when THEY want it and take unlimited sick leave if they get
sick....
All this are direct consequences of min wage law.
data_lieutenant
"Instead of how much can the corporation extract for how little, how
much will people produce when they are adequately nurtured?"
data_lieutenant replies:
You're partly right, "the capital of the future is ideas!" But, ideas
will always be judged "good" when they are consistent with those
aspects of reality that are not subject to change. Something you, and
all wage earners, have the power to change, is how much your labor is
worth. But, you will always have to FIRST prove your ability to any
employer or business partner whose money you want in exchange for your
work, otherwise you are a THIEF, plain & simple!
If you want to be more "adequately nurtured", your rights to choose to
do your job better, or to learn how to do more lucrative work, are
already protected by the literal text of the Constitution. You don't
deserve any more help from the government, or anybody else, than the
protections of the literal meaning of that text. Somebody (perhaps
even me!) may choose to provide you more than the market value of your
labor, but we all have the right to choose whether or not to give
charity, and to whom.
r...@bendbroadband.com
Is this what you are supporting and advocating??? Because this is what greedy corporations will do. I stand with the protections of worker's rights not the right of the corporation to exploit human beings.
"Moved by the sworn testimony of U.S. officials and human-rights advocates that the 91 percent of the workforce who were immigrants -- from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh -- were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, Murkowski wrote a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
----- Original Message -----
From: data_lieutenant <ratio...@comcast.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
jdougla...@gmail.com
you already feel?
Here is a counter-argument:
http://www.geocities.com/ctrlburn/nosweat.html
I have never been to Saipan, have zero personal knowledge of the facts,
and therefore have no way to draw a conclusion.
I surely do not support "...forced to...", if that happens.
DJ
tode...@yahoo.com
now "the government" (us) subsidizes minimum wage earners who are
working full time for walmart or where ever with HUD housing, food
stamps etc so these people are enslaved in this country. The problem is
the government is already so involved in EVERYTHING it has no business
in, the only way I can see to start to dismantle the huge governmental
mess (with the least human suffering and growing pains) is a huge
increase in minumum wage coupled with dismantling of all governmental
offices employees etc and the resulting tax cuts, from eliminating all
the levels of government. The taxes paid now would be paid in wages
instead. Paying wages is a more efficient transfer much is lost when
government gets involved
r...@bendbroadband.com
They say all the various subsidies etc = about a $15/hr wage. So actually you are right the tax payers are supplementing the difference.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 0:02 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
tode...@yahoo.com
so I am recalling from my memory alone (which means the basics are
right but the info. is wrong, though I am pretty good w/numbers) When
government takes a dollar and uses it to help poor people (often
minimum wage workers) about .15 actually ends up paying for something
for the poor person, the rest goes for paper shuffeling expenses. Good
charities have a .75 or better, charities must only have a .05 to
qualify as a charity and I wonder if the governments own rating would
be closer to that with better scutiny. Exxon Walmart etc. pay minimum
wage and they make boatloads! If they had to pay $15 the worker could
choose how to spend or save their money and the government programs
could be eliminated entirely. Reducing the tax rate on corporations,
the truth is corporations can not pay taxes, the consumers that buy the
products always pay the taxes. So however you look at it we pay. I alm
a landlord ( boo hiss I know) so I see people that have to deal with
the government for food housing etc when both parents are working full
time! And the ones that are multigenerational welfare rats. The system
we have now is broken and needs to be repaired and this is the only way
I see that makes sense.
Date: 17 Oct 2006
Author: National Alliance to End Homelessness
$1.928 billion dollars is spent on federal programs dedicated to
homeless people.
Let's imagine that $1.928 billion paid to workers as income instead of
stolen from people in forced taxation, then add the State stuff on top.
The united states just hit 300 mil population wasn't it? Do the math,
we are paying anyway, I choose people get fair wages and decide for
themselves how to live and the government be limited again to the
constitutional jobs of protecting national security and facilitating
interstate commerce ONLY
jackie mosier
r...@bendbroadband.com
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:35 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> don't have the info. in front of me and am too lazy to go find it now
> so I am recalling from my memory alone (which means the basics are
> right but the info. is wrong, though I am pretty good w/numbers) When
> government takes a dollar and uses it to help poor people (often
> minimum wage workers) about .15 actually ends up paying for something
> for the poor person, the rest goes for paper shuffeling expenses. Good
> charities have a .75 or better, charities must only have a .05 to
> qualify as a charity and I wonder if the governments own rating would
> be closer to that with better scutiny. Exxon Walmart etc. pay minimum
> wage and they make boatloads! If they had to pay $15 the worker could
> choose how to spend or save their money and the government programs
> could be eliminated entirely. Reducing the tax rate on corporations,
> the truth is corporations can not pay taxes, the consumers that buy
> theproducts always pay the taxes. So however you look at it we pay.
> I alm
> a landlord ( boo hiss I know) so I see people that have to deal with
> the government for food housing etc when both parents are working full
> time! And the ones that are multigenerational welfare rats. The system
> we have now is broken and needs to be repaired and this is the only
> wayI see that makes sense.
>
> Date: 17 Oct 2006
> Author: National Alliance to End Homelessness
>
> $1.928 billion dollars is spent on federal programs dedicated to
> homeless people.
>
> Let's imagine that $1.928 billion paid to workers as income instead of
> stolen from people in forced taxation, then add the State stuff on
> top.The united states just hit 300 mil population wasn't it? Do
> the math,
> we are paying anyway, I choose people get fair wages and decide for
> themselves how to live and the government be limited again to the
> constitutional jobs of protecting national security and facilitating
> interstate commerce ONLY
>
>
data_lieutenant
You forget a huge part of this: dead people don't work. Therefore,
any wage that a living person accepts, is a living wage. No business
can survive without paying all its workers a living wage. There is no
real need for a minimum wage, under any circumstance, nor as
prerequisite to anything.
jdougla...@gmail.com
dead people don't work.
I think that the first sentence in this article
(http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4501413) explains what people really
mean when they say "living wage".
"It's a core American value that if someone works hard, he or she
deserves to live in dignity, and yet the $7.50 hourly wage that
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott pays thousands of his workers doesn't meet that
basic standard."
>From dictionary.com, the definition of "dignity" is "bearing, conduct,
or speech indicative of self-respect".
If the authors of the article about Wal-Mart accurately reflect the
views of supporters of the minimum wage, then the purpose of a minimum
wage is to increase workers' feelings self-respect.
I guess they could more accurately call it a "dignified wage" instead
of a "living wage".
DJ
tode...@yahoo.com
minumum wage jobs and pay rent and buy groceries. That is why we have
all these government programs. I for 1 hate subsidizing Walmart,
Mcdonalds, Exxon and all these companies that are making money while
paying those that work slave wages, with government susidies. we
eliminate all government programs and companies would be forced to pay
a decent wage if they wanted people to work for them. Having to accept
charity from the governement is not dignity. To me having the Federal
government involved in every aspect of peoples lives is repulsive.
tode...@yahoo.com
Declining wages, in turn, have put housing out of reach for many
workers: in every state, no one earning minimum wage can afford a one
or two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent (FMR).
In order to afford to rent a two-bedroom home at the
nationally-weighted FMR, a worker would have to earn $14.66 per hour,
which is nearly three times the federal minimum wage, and still more
than double the highest minimum wage among states that have enacted
higher minimum wages. (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2002).
4.9 million households suffer from worse case housing needs, which is
understood to be unassisted renters living below 50 percent of area
median income and paying over half their income for housing (HUD).
Overall, 15 million families have critical housing needs and 28 million
Americans are paying more than 30 percent of their limited incomes on
housing.
Okay the above is pasted off a website on homelessness, not all poor
are homeless and a lot of those in homes are paying a large portion of
their income on houseing by my standards if you are both earning $8 per
hour and working 40 hours a week you can afford 850 a month I go 1/3
for rent for a 3 bedroom in most areas that is low. I have several 3
bedrooms I rent for about 800 so I deal with these people a lot. Most
are very hard working, I do not accept HUD (okay I just lied I have an
ex tenant whose husband just passed who is going to move back into a
place she lived in for 11 yrs and for her I am accepting it but I
normally do not) I have had nothing but problems from HUD tenants many
are multigenerational "you owe me" mentality and I won't deal with
jerks willingly. I think a national minumum wage of $12 would allow
elimination of all governmental programs and allow people who work to
pay their own way. Which is how it should be the government should not
be housing people or feeding them they are to ensure national defence
and facilitate interstate commerce. Read the constitution! I would call
facilitateing interstate comerce roads and rulings on companies that
sell across state lines so any company operating in more than 1 state
would be subject to the minimum wage law.
data_lieutenant
I have the dignity, and show the respect, to say what I "really mean",
without need for reference to any political code words.
data_lieutenant
True, accepting charity from the government is not dignity. Therefore,
it is illogical to accept a desire for "dignity" as part of the
motivation of those who do accept or advocate government compulsion as
a valid means to procure a wage higher than a free market would afford
them.
Being poor and accepting charity is no more dignified than accepting it
as a corporate executive. Abolish both personal and corporate welfare,
and for exactly the same reason: the entire community is better off
when productivity is rewarded by a completely free market than when
money is paid to anybody for ANY reason other than mutually volitional
exchange.
r...@bendbroadband.com
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:46 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
Wes Wagner
:)
-Wes
r...@bendbroadband.com
As you wish
But consider how the idea of a minimum wage must have sounded when it was first proposed
Wes Wagner
Seriously, if there were a maximum wage, knowing the people in this country that think up such ideas, I probably would have to quit working because the time invested in it would just not be worth it for me .... better to go on the dole than to earn half what I do now.
r...@bendbroadband.com
suppose I suggest 100X the minimum wage
----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: new topic - maximum wage
> Yeah, I am still trying to recover from that one.... ;)
>
> Seriously, if there were a maximum wage, knowing the people in this
> countrythat think up such ideas, I probably would have to quit
Wes Wagner
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
tode...@yahoo.com
get more" is the core of the capitalist system. We have worked hard and
been rewarded for our efforts. To indicate I didn't deserve as much as
I have because other people work as hard as I do is the idea of
communism. Eveyone should have what they need even if they choose to
stay home and watch soaps all day.? That is crap. The government
(Regan) helped brake down the unions and wages have actually fallen
since, for the manual labor type occupations. I liked Regan and agreed
with a lot of what he did but the airtraffic controller layoff was bad.
The 14.66 is for a median price home including utilities for a total of
30% of income. That is how HUD sets rent. Add up your housepayment,
property taxes, insurance, electric, gas, sewer, water, phone $14 per
month depreciation on frig if supplied by landlord, $8 for stove. Most
of us probably pay more than 30% for housing. I have 2 bedrooms for
$500 there are luxury apt. for $1300 so median for a 2 bedroom in this
area would be a lot more than most people pay. The idea of minimum
should allow people to have safe decent housing without government
involvement. Many people are actually afraid to make more because then
they make $1 over the poverty threshold they lose $600 in goverment
benefits! By the same token if they play the system right they make
way more than minimum wage.
I had a tenant multigenerational welfare she had 4 kids by 4 different
guys never been married rented a 3 bedroom house from me on HUD (when I
used to take it) they also gave her a housing allowance for her
electric bill as her welfare was not enough. Plus food stamps complete
medical dental optical, full scholorship paid for tuition, books, gas,
lunch, baby sitting. I sat down and added it up and she was "paid" more
than my husband and he was working at Fedex. Another one had 9 kids by
9 different guys once they hit 7 they went into foster care, CSD
determined her house was too filthy so they hired a maid to clean it 2
days a week I sent her mow notice (must mow yard) so they hired a
gardener to mow her lawn once a week, she would have a kid every 3
years to avoid the jobs program. We need to eliminate the programs that
foster dependency while paying less skilled workers enough to give them
a start, without putting too large a burden on companies, if they don't
make money they don't stay in business. Then no jobs! I believe once
the minimum wage was implemented HUGE tax cuts would repay the
companies, they would pay out in wages what would have gone for taxes
to support the government programs. Also once unshackled of government
programs people would become self sufficient and work harder without
fear of losing benefits! Last tenant I had on HUD married 4 kids no job
for husband, caught drinking and driving cut from HUD they have been
tenants since 2000 never had a phone or decent car etc. Once HUD cut
them he got a job logging, now they have a phone a better car etc. They
are working! Novel concept. But they must be paid enough to pay rent
and buy groceries at minimum wage so they can get started. Once people
start working they can learn to be worth more than minimum. Companies
can not be expected to pay good wages and huge taxes to support lazy
people. I think germany has a maximum of 10x for companies top pay can
be no more than 10 x lowest paid worker in that company. It was talking
about it in the Forbes on the Mercedes/Chrysler story. Would have to
find the article if I didn't throw it out already. Low guy get $50,000
top guy can't get more than $500,000. Maybe that would work in wages.
CEO wages are off the charts here, would probably increase corporate
profits while increasing low guy pay. Something to ponder I guess.
Everything is far more complicated than it first appears.
pave...@gmail.com
Min-max wage is one of the main idea of so-called "socialism economy"
(not a real science) with the goal to eleminate difference bettwen min
and max wage and at the end eleminate money.
Wes Wagner
-Wes
tode...@yahoo.com
maximum wage rules. You should be able to earn what you can as
incentive to create weath. I do not support income tax, penalize people
for creating wealth? I do not like government programs and in order to
eliminate them we need to have jobs that pay enough to survive on pay
rent and buy groceries without government involvement. To take from
those that have and give to those too lazy is repulsive to me. We pay
too much in taxes now to support those that are working low paying
jobs, subsidizing large corporations that are making money on those
workers. Those companies should be paying thier employees, not
taxpayers. My answer is to increase federal min wage to $12 on
companies operating in more than 1 state. Small mom and pops and start
ups are not affected. Mcdonalds, Texaco, Exxon, Walmart, Sears K-mart
etc all would have to increase wages. Then cut taxes. Since most large
companies would be affected the playing feild is level. Once the
government is downsized the tax reductions should support the higher
wages, course all those now unemployed government workers will probably
benefit from the new min wage. The transfer of wealth through wages is
more efficient than government programs and gives incentive to work
through increased earning potential. Leave charity to the private
sector. Americans are generous people already now imagine if they
weren't being robbed by uncle sam. Charity for short term problems to
get back on your feet instead of long term dependency. We would still
have to set up something for the disabled and aged but that is a
separate issue. You realize right now the government is the largest
employer in the USA? If you add together state fed county city etc that
is wrong. Dee
r...@bendbroadband.com
I ask the original question in part because I don't see Libertarian advocating doing much of anything, mostly the case is made to stop doing, or un do this or that and that's fine. Dee's idea is an example of DOING something with government power.
This argument is worthy of some consideration because it is also a plan.
I get the sense that there would be a two tiered system??? the minimum wage and the higher minimum wage for large inter-state companies. maybe call the higher wage the "living wage" and keep the "minimum wage" as a floor.
Dee went to the trouble of writing this, and for discussion purposes, how is it Libertarian or not? Once fully implemented would America be more or less "Libertarian"?
Who wins, who loses, and why???
Special note to Wes - you insult me like that again and you can just talk to yourself. I am amazed that open discussion of ideas threatens you so.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:04 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> Yup Pavel, is socialism my screw up. I do not support the idea of
> maximum wage rules. You should be able to earn what you can as
> incentive to create weath. I do not support income tax, penalize
> peoplefor creating wealth? I do not like government programs and in
> order to
> eliminate them we need to have jobs that pay enough to survive on pay
> rent and buy groceries without government involvement. To take from
> those that have and give to those too lazy is repulsive to me. We pay
> too much in taxes now to support those that are working low paying
> jobs, subsidizing large corporations that are making money on those
> workers. Those companies should be paying thier employees, not
> taxpayers. My answer is to increase federal min wage to $12 on
> companies operating in more than 1 state. Small mom and pops and start
> ups are not affected. Mcdonalds, Texaco, Exxon, Walmart, Sears K-mart
> etc all would have to increase wages. Then cut taxes. Since most large
> companies would be affected the playing feild is level. Once the
> government is downsized the tax reductions should support the higher
> wages, course all those now unemployed government workers will
> probablybenefit from the new min wage. The transfer of wealth
> through wages is
> more efficient than government programs and gives incentive to work
> through increased earning potential. Leave charity to the private
> sector. Americans are generous people already now imagine if they
> weren't being robbed by uncle sam. Charity for short term problems to
> get back on your feet instead of long term dependency. We would still
> have to set up something for the disabled and aged but that is a
> separate issue. You realize right now the government is the largest
> employer in the USA? If you add together state fed county city etc
> thatis wrong. Dee
>
>
r...@bendbroadband.com
thank you for the detailed response! Much good information and indeed very complicated topic.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, October 28, 2006 8:25 am
Subject: [SPAM:*] Re: model flawed
>
> I think a maximum wage is a bad idea the idea of incentive "work hard
> get more" is the core of the capitalist system. We have worked hard
> andbeen rewarded for our efforts. To indicate I didn't deserve as
> much as
> I have because other people work as hard as I do is the idea of
> communism. Eveyone should have what they need even if they choose to
> stay home and watch soaps all day.? That is crap. The government
> (Regan) helped brake down the unions and wages have actually fallen
> since, for the manual labor type occupations. I liked Regan and agreed
> with a lot of what he did but the airtraffic controller layoff was
> bad.The 14.66 is for a median price home including utilities for a
> total of
> 30% of income. That is how HUD sets rent. Add up your housepayment,
> property taxes, insurance, electric, gas, sewer, water, phone $14 per
> month depreciation on frig if supplied by landlord, $8 for stove. Most
> of us probably pay more than 30% for housing. I have 2 bedrooms for
> $500 there are luxury apt. for $1300 so median for a 2 bedroom in this
> area would be a lot more than most people pay. The idea of minimum
> should allow people to have safe decent housing without government
> involvement. Many people are actually afraid to make more because then
> they make $1 over the poverty threshold they lose $600 in goverment
> benefits! By the same token if they play the system right they make
> way more than minimum wage.
> I had a tenant multigenerational welfare she had 4 kids by 4 different
> guys never been married rented a 3 bedroom house from me on HUD
> (when I
> used to take it) they also gave her a housing allowance for her
> electric bill as her welfare was not enough. Plus food stamps complete
> medical dental optical, full scholorship paid for tuition, books, gas,
> lunch, baby sitting. I sat down and added it up and she was "paid"
> morethan my husband and he was working at Fedex. Another one had 9
> kids by
> 9 different guys once they hit 7 they went into foster care, CSD
> determined her house was too filthy so they hired a maid to clean
> it 2
> days a week I sent her mow notice (must mow yard) so they hired a
> gardener to mow her lawn once a week, she would have a kid every 3
> years to avoid the jobs program. We need to eliminate the programs
> thatfoster dependency while paying less skilled workers enough to
> give them
> a start, without putting too large a burden on companies, if they
> don'tmake money they don't stay in business. Then no jobs! I
> believe once
> the minimum wage was implemented HUGE tax cuts would repay the
> companies, they would pay out in wages what would have gone for taxes
> to support the government programs. Also once unshackled of government
> programs people would become self sufficient and work harder without
> fear of losing benefits! Last tenant I had on HUD married 4 kids no
> jobfor husband, caught drinking and driving cut from HUD they have
> beentenants since 2000 never had a phone or decent car etc. Once
> HUD cut
> them he got a job logging, now they have a phone a better car etc.
> Theyare working! Novel concept. But they must be paid enough to
> pay rent
> and buy groceries at minimum wage so they can get started. Once people
> start working they can learn to be worth more than minimum. Companies
> can not be expected to pay good wages and huge taxes to support lazy
> people. I think germany has a maximum of 10x for companies top pay
> canbe no more than 10 x lowest paid worker in that company. It was
> talkingabout it in the Forbes on the Mercedes/Chrysler story. Would
> have to
> find the article if I didn't throw it out already. Low guy get $50,000
> top guy can't get more than $500,000. Maybe that would work in wages.
> CEO wages are off the charts here, would probably increase corporate
> profits while increasing low guy pay. Something to ponder I guess.
> Everything is far more complicated than it first appears.
>
>
tode...@yahoo.com
less government involvement in areas they do not belong. Smaller
government as well and I think my plan would injure business the least.
The transition is always the most difficult, then how do we get it
started? I probably e-mail Bush, Defazio, Wyden and Smith more than
most folks they must see my name and think oh God not her again. We
have to do something. I have idea's but am willing to listen and
consider any intelligent ones. I think tax cuts would off set incresed
wages, low income people gain, government employees lose, but should be
able to find new employment.
tode...@yahoo.com
is what I advocate, the thing is the constitution only allows for
federal gov involvement for protecting national security (also securing
borders) and facilitating interstate commerce so if a company is not
operating in more than 1 state the fed has no business in it's
business. That is up to the states. The fed is already doing many
unconstitutional things most of which it should not be doing so I do
not want to recomend they do another unconstitutional thing. Clear as
mud that is? I admit my business would be exempt as I am only here but
my last guy started at $8 and left at $15 he turned 19 and left me for
wayerhaeuser, I find a good worker get em trained and working for a
slave driving witch like me, then they want benefits etc! Just kidding
about being mad he left, he was a good worker and deserves more than I
can afford to pay MY LOSS! Also the capitalist system working without
governmental interference.
r...@bendbroadband.com
I am interested in ideas.
I am okay with discussing possibilities outside my comfort zone. Discussion is not confrontation. Name calling or slinging insults is counter-productive.
if I am a Libertarian (and I don't think I am anymore) color me of the labor-tarian variety. Again - the original topic "model flawed" suggested that a thrid criteria be used in conjunction with personal and economic freedom, that being, the question does it advance the human condition? Y or N?
Many Libetrarians don't seem to be willing to accept incremental gains, prefering instead an all or nothing approach.
I jusy hope that workers remember if/when labor ever gets the upper hand, not how much does it take to put braces on my kid's teeth, not how much does it take to buy a new car, not how much does it take to raise a family, not how much does it take to take your family out to dinner twice a week, but what we learned from big oil... how much will the bastards pay!
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> I bet you knew I would figure it as more Libertarian, to me that means
> less government involvement in areas they do not belong. Smaller
> government as well and I think my plan would injure business the
> least.The transition is always the most difficult, then how do we
> get it
> started? I probably e-mail Bush, Defazio, Wyden and Smith more than
> most folks they must see my name and think oh God not her again. We
> have to do something. I have idea's but am willing to listen and
> consider any intelligent ones. I think tax cuts would off set incresed
> wages, low income people gain, government employees lose, but
> should be
> able to find new employment.
>
>
r...@bendbroadband.com
thanks for clarifying
not wanting or trying to put words in your mouth
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> I just reread R's response I really don't know if a two tiered system
> is what I advocate, the thing is the constitution only allows for
> federal gov involvement for protecting national security (also
> securingborders) and facilitating interstate commerce so if a
> company is not
> operating in more than 1 state the fed has no business in it's
> business. That is up to the states. The fed is already doing many
> unconstitutional things most of which it should not be doing so I do
> not want to recomend they do another unconstitutional thing. Clear as
> mud that is? I admit my business would be exempt as I am only here but
> my last guy started at $8 and left at $15 he turned 19 and left me for
> wayerhaeuser, I find a good worker get em trained and working for a
> slave driving witch like me, then they want benefits etc! Just kidding
> about being mad he left, he was a good worker and deserves more
> than I
> can afford to pay MY LOSS! Also the capitalist system working without
> governmental interference.
>
>
tode...@yahoo.com
the poorly educated and less intelligent deserve the pursuit of
happiness and economic enslavement has to be seen as wrong even when
the powerful are doing it. With our tax dollars we are helping them be
enslaved, without subsidies I bet they would have revolted before now!
Look at Mexico, barricading buildings since june! several shot today
teachers revolting.
r...@bendbroadband.com
lets not forget - that the unconstitutional federal reserve uses fiscal and economic policy to at times, induce recessions and thereby create unemployment to slow the machine. How archaic is that??? But the fact is many of "them" get the rug pulled out from under them everytime they try to stand up.
The federal reserve has engineered recessions on average about once each 8 years. Even if you mananbge to survive it, odds are your net worth has went DOWN making you that much more less likely to survive the next one or the one after that, or >>>>> you get the point.
This fact must be included in the debate as to why we are where we are and the programs that we currently have.
shouldn't an economic system be structured so that it serves humanity? instead of one that demands human sacrifice and that uses human capital to slow the machine? Thank goodness someone invented the brake, or if economists were in charge they'd tie human beings to ropes and toss them out dragging them to their bloody deaths in order to slow the vehicle. Are these people insane? Or is it we who are insane for letting them do this with our economy?
What voice do we have?
The entire paradigm needs to shift.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> I think we are to stand for personal and economic freedom for all!
> Eventhe poorly educated and less intelligent deserve the pursuit of
> happiness and economic enslavement has to be seen as wrong even when
> the powerful are doing it. With our tax dollars we are helping them be
> enslaved, without subsidies I bet they would have revolted before now!
> Look at Mexico, barricading buildings since june! several shot today
> teachers revolting.
>
>
pave...@gmail.com
before starting this discussion? The good one to start with called
"Economics"
The laws of economics may be not obvious like other science but they
can't be ignored.
Let's say we increase min wage tomorrow to 10/hr. Economics (and all of
us) knows that low-paid workers will use this money (all of them) next
month. They do not save or invest or starting new businesses. Free
market will react with higher prices to accommodate higher demand.
Corporation will make more money and some of them (if they can't make
more in US) will shift production elsewhere.
This law is simple - increasing pay without increasing production will
cause inflation. Even if you increase min wage monthly - inflation will
eat it. Russia tried it several years ago - min wage was adjusted
monthly. Even after they stop doing it - inflation was very high for a
long time. Now Russia is sitting on a big pile of money (1 trillion in
so-called Stabilization Fund) and afraid to use it.
pave...@gmail.com
I lived in socialist country and money had limited role back there. If
you can't buy car, house, luxury items. You can't invest or start own
company. So in a sense was in the process of disappearing. Was even
worse in Cuba - money doesn't mean anything there. You need tarjeta
to get groceries and you have 2 days a year when you can get other
stuff - like 2 toys per kid or one T-shirt. So everyone have plenty of
pesos but no use...
jdougla...@gmail.com
quantity of goods and services that exist.
The quantity of money can only increase when a government literally
prints it (not that much really ) or when the banking system creates a
loan "out of thin air" (all the time).
For example, when you take out a mortgage, you supposedly "borrow" the
money from the bank. Funny thing is, they don't actually have the
money. By law, they are only required to have a "reserve" of less than
10% (see http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm).
When you borrow $250,000 to buy a house, the bank only has to have
deposits on hand of $25,000. When you sign the mortgage (your IOU),
the bank holds that piece of paper that you just created as an asset
worth $250,000. The bank instantly creates $250,000 and gives it to
you. You give to the seller. She divides it between the realtor,
broker, construction workers and so on.
The extra $225,000 came into existence the moment you signed the
mortgage. The money supply grew by $225,000 because YOU promised your
future earnings to people in exchange for their goods and services
today. The money DID NOT EXIST until you signed the mortgage.
You created inflation by signing the mortgage because there are now
more dollars in peoples wallets.
If you pay off the mortgage or default on it, the money supply will
shrink.
When lots of people decide to pay down their debt or default on their
loans, the money supply shrinks.
The ebb and flow of total debt in the economy causes inflation and
deflation.
The Federal Reserve (actually private banks) tries to affect the ebb
and flow of debt to stabilize employment. For the first 130 years of
the U.S., they did not exist.
Before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there was, on average,
no inflation. (During periods of exuberance, similar to our recent
dotcom and housing bubbles, there was inflation as people manicly
created debt they could never repay. When reality sank in, those who
had made bad loans went bankrupt, shrinking the money supply and
causing deflation. It all averaged out over time. The poor did not
have to suffer continuous inflation.)
Since 1913, the Federal Reserve has mostly avoided deflation by causing
the ebb and flow to be between bad inflation and horrendous inflation.
The value of the dollar has fallen more than 95%.
So much for government intervention to solve problems...
DJ
tode...@yahoo.com
the difference for low wage earners, we are attempting to eliminate the
programs and the taxation from us to pay Mcdonalds employees, the
transfer of funds in the form of wages is more efficient every dollar
spent by that person comes from job to person, now 1/2 the money spent
by that person arrives as food stamps or a HUD subsidy, after they IRS
takes it from someone else and less than .15 actually ends up being
spent by the person the rest is consumed by the government machine. So
the tax cuts could pay for the wage increase. Check out my hypothesis
the amount spent on HUD etc is shocking and one of 50 such programs!
The governmental intervention caused this problem, this is the only way
I can see that it can be corrected. Eliminate the government programs.
Make companies pay thier own workers from their income not tax dollars.
Slash taxes.
r...@bendbroadband.com
the greenspan fed deliberately stalled the economy and drove the stock market into decline in part because they/he was afraid that we were nearing full employment and that wages were about to start rising. He was right about that but wrong in trying to prevent it. I cite as an example the more recent shutting down of car mfg plants. It's not because everyone already has a new car or that no one wants a new car any more, rather, that most people do not have the disposable income to buy a new car. Those that do already have. In a way the fed launched unprovoked attack on America's economy, with one of the objectives being to keep wages from rising thereby keeping labor "in their place". I believe a secondary objective was to keep the boomers working longer.
Ford understood one thing - you have to pay your workers well enough that they can afford to buy what mfging is producing.
Human labor is a commodity just like wheat or steel. It was wrong of uncle fedster to manipulate economic policy to pop the stock market bubble, stall the economy, to artificially suppress the value of human labor. The fed has way too much unchecked power.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:43 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
> We would not be increasing pay, right now government programs make up
> the difference for low wage earners, we are attempting to eliminate
> theprograms and the taxation from us to pay Mcdonalds employees, the
> transfer of funds in the form of wages is more efficient every dollar
> spent by that person comes from job to person, now 1/2 the money spent
> by that person arrives as food stamps or a HUD subsidy, after they IRS
> takes it from someone else and less than .15 actually ends up being
> spent by the person the rest is consumed by the government machine. So
> the tax cuts could pay for the wage increase. Check out my hypothesis
> the amount spent on HUD etc is shocking and one of 50 such programs!
> The governmental intervention caused this problem, this is the only
> wayI can see that it can be corrected. Eliminate the government
> programs.Make companies pay thier own workers from their income not
> tax dollars.
> Slash taxes.
>
>
tode...@yahoo.com
much as possible while not harming #1 the economy. #2 other humans #3
businesses, working within our current political system? My proposal is
not perfect maybe not even the best we can come up with but it is a
start. I think our representatives could back it, dems for increased
min wage, repubs decrease taxes and hopefully eliminate gov programs.
r...@bendbroadband.com
Yes indeed. Let's say that 6-7 years ago uncle fedster had NOT manipulated the economy and wages rose (just like they were supposed to). Steel in short supply has more than doubled in price, why not labor? Price is a function of the supply/demand curve (ohhhh - maybe I have read an economics book or two)
But the fact is he/they artificially distorted the economy, in effect pulling the rug out from under labor?
Had he/they not done this, I would say the market place should be solving these problems (and it may have at least started to). but since uncle fedster perverted the free market dynamics, then absolutely, a law requiring a much higher minimum wage (living wage) under the conditions you describe seems not only reasonable but now necessary. chicken or egg, egg or chicken? But here we are.
It's only when we get to full employement AND STAY there that upward migration of people into the highest and best use of their skills will be accomplished. AND this comes with an increase in the unit cost of labor... SO WHAT! That's the way a free market should operate. Eventually, more supply will be attracted to the higher priced labor jobs and the rate of increase will moderate.
Further - I think it's shameful what the fed does. They know damn good and well that crime goes up when unemployment goes up.
----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:59 am
Subject: Re: model flawed
>
jdougla...@gmail.com
http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/transcripts/2000/20001003meeting.pdf
They were clueless. They had no idea that a recession had already begun
and that the stock market was going to fall 25% over the next eleven
months from Oct. 3, 200 to Sept. 10, 2001.
The key word is "clueless".
You wrote that they "deliberately stalled the economy and drove the
stock market into decline." Read their words. That is not what they
thought they were doing, so it wasn't "deliberate".
DJ
pave...@gmail.com
jdougla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Inflation happens when the quantity of money grows faster than the
> quantity of goods and services that exist.
Inflation is way more complicated. If it was that simple it will be
easy to keep it at 0% - just print less money! (Again was tried in
Russia in 90-91, result was 1800% yearly inflation rate)
If min wage will be 12/hr - it will immediately put pressure on folks
who are making 12/hr now and survive without any government help. Even
workers with 20/hr will want more.
May be Feds are "clueless" about market crush (also millions of
investors by the way) but they know at least basics.
tode...@yahoo.com
office for awhile (I don't accept it) Years ago I was at the HUD office
(me landlord) and was shocked to see that my husband and I with 3 kids
(he had worked at Fedex for 15 yrs.) Qualified for housing assistance!
Yet as low income as we were, we were managing to stash money and buy
extra houses! Hubby made $13.05 at the time. I had an expensive hobby
of buying fixer uppers so I was not a positive cash flow at that time.
Everyone told us we were idiots to buy houses we were going to lose our
shirts. Once we get the government out of things they have no business
in the free market will take over. The subsidizing of large companies
to enslave workers could not happen without government assistance. It's
a start. If this idea is so bad? What do you suggest? Anyone?
jdougla...@gmail.com
printed money.
The Federal Reserve banks actually don't print very much cash.
http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html
Notice in the chart that currency is only about half of M1 or about 10%
of the total money supply.
The growth in the money supply is caused by the creation of new debt
faster than old debt is paid off. (Customer signs loan - bank creates
money and deposits it in customers account.)
I'll agree that the causes of debt growth are complicated.
Because there are so many factors influencing the amount of dollar
debt, it seems simplistic to attribute the performance of the economy
to the Federal Reserve's intentions, especially when their own
transcripts
(http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/transcripts/2000/20001003meeting.pdf)
reveal that all their computer models don't work and that Greenspan
himself didn't trust the models....
---
Is there data that shows that the Russian money supply shrank yet
inflation was 1800%. If so, please share it.
---
Millions of investors were indeed "clueless" about the impending market
crash in 2000. The fact that investors were clueless does not make the
Fed less clueless.
On the other hand, for every share of stock that was traded during the
bubble, there was a buyer and a seller. The sellers didn't do too
badly.
---
People ought to read the transcript above and have a more realistic
understanding of the actual thoughts and concerns of the Federal
Reserve rather than assume that they control the economy.
It seems that we should first investigate and discuss the causes of
problems before proposing solutions.
DJ
pave...@gmail.com
Some data below.
And it was not about cash only. I remember you can't get money from
saving bank account, no credits, loans. They delayed paychecks for 6
month and more. It was crazy and money still worth nothing and prices
rise every day.
This was the counsel that the Russian government followed in 1992-8. It
was generally believed that the pursuance of a tight monetary policy
was
essential. In fact, the IMF requested the Central Bank of Russia (CBR)
to
set explicit targets for growth in the money supply. Compliance with
these
targets served as one of the main criteria for determining Russian
eligibility
for Western loans. Figures showing inflation and money growth are
presented below.
Annual growth in consumer prices, in percent:
1992 -- 2,509
1993 -- 840
1994 -- 215
1995 -- 131
1996 -- 22
1997 -- 11
1998 -- 84
1999 -- 37
2000 -- 20
2001 -- 19
2002 -- 15
Annual growth in money supply (cash and deposits), in percent:
1992 -- 642
1993 -- 409
1994 -- 200
1995 -- 125
1996 -- 31
1997 -- 30
1998 -- 20
1999 -- 57
2000 -- 62
2001 -- 40
2002 -- 32
jdougla...@gmail.com
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm
Russia has continued to rein in inflation. "Consumer Price Index (CPI)
inflation was 10.9% in 2005, having steadily decreased from 20.2% in
2000, due primarily to prudent fiscal policy."
Notice that we, "the US State Department", attribute Russia's improving
inflation situation to "prudent fiscal policy". In other words, their
prior inflation problems were caused by out-of-control growth of
government debt.
Of course, 10% inflation is still a terrible burden on the working
class since prices are always rising and any money they save is
devalued.
Speaking of the link between inflation and government debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
DJ
tode...@yahoo.com
the government programs and shifting things to the private sector would
cut the budget and lesson the amount the gov spends, less spending =
less debt. Would have no effect on money supplies. Right now many low
income people get $6 pay $6 gov benefits! So we are subsidizing what
ever company they are working for! Why?
IMF policies have hurt many countries. Have you heard of a book called
"confessions of an economic hit man" Interesting reading and have
checked on some of the claims in the book (not all obviously) and they
were confirmed.
data_lieutenant
How did the Fed "manipulate the economy"? It is absurd to suppose that
a quarter-percent adjustment to the lending rate has as much effect on
the economy as the totality of the protection money spent by the
legislative & executive branches, on "public works" and other pet
projects. The latter active, forced redistribution of wealth (which
does not exist before somebody invents, then labors, to create it) has
much more effect on the economy than the Fed, which because of its
limited power to move incrementally can only apply a nudge to economic
trends. A new factory worth building, or keeping open, as the case may
be (meaning, staffed by productive enough workers to be worthy of
employment) will be worth operating whether the prime lending rate is
5% or 4.75%. Companies and workers so uncompetitive that a 0.25% shift
in the prime lending rate can sink them, deserve to be sunk.
If you need a scapegoat for an economic bubble, look to the elected
representatives and network news pundits who propagated speculation on
the sale of nothing, and the idiots who kept investing in the "not new
sector", regardless of price-earning ratios, and even negative
earnings. Greenspan warned that the dot-com boom would bust. He
didn't cause it to do so. He never had that much power.
If a hammer falls on your foot, do you blame the hammer, gravity, or
the moron who dropped it on his own foot?
jdougla...@gmail.com
And regarding a scapegoat for an economic bubble, maybe there isn't
one.
Throughout history, there have been many booms and busts of asset
prices. Like gravity, it could be just an infrequent but natural
consequence of systems in which people manically bid to purchase assets
and in which other people manically loan money based on the recent
price of those assets.
Anyone who participates ought to blame himself for not studying history
and for believing that there is such a thing as "a free lunch".
DJ