Tired of the corruption in the LPO? Contact your county chair...

1 view
Skip to first unread message

wes.w...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2006, 11:36:05 AM10/14/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Here is a list of county party chairs:

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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 4:18:08 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 5:04:02 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
I think this is actually handled well by libertarian ideas - people deserve to 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 person doing 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

r...@bendbroadband.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 8:23:30 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 8:34:01 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
My argument was that under our system of laws what we are doing is actually illegal and should be treated as such. Slavery and indentured servitude are big no-no's in libertarian ideology.

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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 9:26:55 PM10/20/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
That was a big leap for me. I don't see how buying products made in
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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 9:56:46 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 10:22:46 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
No, because that would violate the rights of a person to sell their labor for less if they so chose.

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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 11:14:53 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
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.

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

unread,
Oct 20, 2006, 11:16:47 PM10/20/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com

I was just debating how a global minimum wage is or is not a libertarian ideal.

Wes Wagner

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 12:10:30 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
When you have a minimum wage that means that everyone who is incapable of producing that amount of economic value is then permanently unemployable. Same situation they have in Europe. Both productivity and unemployment is up because everyone who can't produce the minimum amount of economic value is permanently unemployable.

-Wes


jdougla...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 12:43:47 AM10/21/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 12:45:49 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
Well who else would minimum wage be designed to "protect" ? People who's work is worth more than minimum wage can ask for a higher rate of pay.

-Wes Wagner

jdougla...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 12:54:46 AM10/21/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Wes, I assumed from your prior posts that you want to "protect" the
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:00:09 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
I do not wish to "protect" anyone - it stagnates the soul and causes people to be lesser than their potential. I do however not wish to make the poorer group less free.

-Wes


jdougla...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:27:43 AM10/21/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Wes, it appears that I used a word ("protect") that has negative
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:23:22 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:26:36 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
By definition there should be no work that is not worth the minimum wage. It is the bottom. It effectively establishes below that as unfair exploitation. That's whether you're flipping hamburgers or whathaveyou. No wage shall be paid less than that amount.

----- 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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:34:06 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
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 relocate causes 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 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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:31:31 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com

Minimum wage is the topic of discussion

r...@bendbroadband.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:35:27 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:40:18 AM10/21/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
RSK,

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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:47:21 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
There is no such thing as paying below market wages - a wage is precisely what the market will bear. At some point if the wages are not high enough for people to survive and maintain a resonable existence, necessity will cause them to seek other employment, or unionize.

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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 2:23:41 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 2:58:11 AM10/21/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about the effect of a minor in the
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 9:21:31 AM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
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, 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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 1:37:04 PM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
You almost got it. I was referring to the law and whether or not there was a law that required a private person to pay another private person minimum wage for some sort of contract labor - mow the lawn, baby sit, shovel snow. I brought the under-age aspect into the discussion because it's not likely that an adult would mow lawns or baby sit for less than the minimum wage. In most cases I would hope that the worker and work is valued enough to pay generously. At the very least the minimum wage provides a guideline in such circumstances that aren't considered full or part time employment, rather contract labor, the minimum wage is a reference/benchmark.

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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 4:10:11 PM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 21, 2006, 5:19:06 PM10/21/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 22, 2006, 1:41:35 AM10/22/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
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 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

unread,
Oct 22, 2006, 10:25:33 AM10/22/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
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 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

unread,
Oct 22, 2006, 12:54:31 PM10/22/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
Very complicated issue health care and medical drs. You make very good points.

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

unread,
Oct 22, 2006, 12:55:30 PM10/22/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
well at least we're on the same page with this one.

----- 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

unread,
Oct 23, 2006, 12:44:14 AM10/23/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Price does not depend on how important something is.

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

unread,
Oct 23, 2006, 1:54:15 AM10/23/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Hey, r...@bendbroadband.com, you're awfully confrontational considering
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

unread,
Oct 24, 2006, 1:09:44 AM10/24/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
I don't follow what you mean by the "slavery model".

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

unread,
Oct 24, 2006, 8:04:05 PM10/24/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
I don't understand why nobody answers this? Yes, it's not libertarian
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

unread,
Oct 24, 2006, 11:09:16 PM10/24/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
r...@bendbroadband wrote:

"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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 12:45:49 AM10/25/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 1:31:26 AM10/25/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Do you believe everything you read? Or just when it agrees with what
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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 3:02:23 AM10/25/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Well so far I think you are all forget in a huge part of this. Right
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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 11:03:29 AM10/25/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
YES!

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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 12:35:39 PM10/25/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
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 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

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 2:08:51 PM10/25/06
to Libertarian Discussion
A few points to add to this interesting discussion:
 
First, if any of you own stocks or mutual funds shares then you are part of a "greedy" corporation.  Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value.  If they did not try to make a profit, then they would eventually cease to exist.  That is what differentiates a private entity from an inefficient government run organization with no efficiency incentives.
 
 
That said, we all know that officers of corporations sometimes act unethically or even illegally.  This is unfortunately human nature.  I don't think that the coporate model itself is flawed, it is human beings who are flawed.  So when liberal corporate bashers use terms like "greedy corporations" I tend to tune out thier argument as pure emotion.  Just what is the argument?  That corporations should not exist?  That they should not be "greedy"?  If so define "greedy". 
 
The issue of minimum wage is extremely complicated when applied globally.  There are various government subsidies, differences in cost of living, and non-democratic government systems to consider.  A global minimum wage would be extremely impractical and it's enforcement would create yet another bloated bureaucracy.  As US citizens, we are all free to purchase or not to purchase goods from companies that may be exploiting foreign workers.  We can also choose not to own or sell stock in these companies.
 
Is Economics a required course in High School anymore?   
It is interesting that the recent Nobel Prize in Economics went to an American who has done extensive research on minimum wage.  Following is text from an article in The Economist, Oct. 12.  Is the Nobel winning Phelps model flawed? 
 
BORN in the trough of the Great Depression, Edmund Phelps, a professor at Columbia University who this week won the Nobel prize for economics, has spent much of his intellectual life studying slumps of a different kind. The Depression, which cost both of his parents their jobs, was exacerbated by the monetary authorities, who kept too tight a grip on the money supply. Mr Phelps is interested in unemployment that even open-handed central bankers cannot cure.
Most scholars stand on the shoulders of giants. But Mr Phelps won his laurels in part for kicking the feet from under his intellectual forerunners. In 1958 William Phillips, of the London School of Economics, showed that for much of the previous hundred years, unemployment was low in Britain when wage inflation was high, and high when inflation was low. Economists were quick—too quick—to conclude that policymakers therefore faced a grand, macroeconomic trade-off, embodied in the so-called “Phillips curve”. They could settle for unemployment of, say, 6% and an inflation rate of 1%—as prevailed in America at the start of the 1960s—or they could quicken the economy, cutting unemployment by a couple of percentage points at the expense of inflation of 3% or so—which is roughly how things stood in America when Mr Phelps published his first paper on the subject in 1967.
In such a tight labour market, companies appease workers by offering higher wages. They then pass on the cost in the form of dearer prices, cheating workers of a higher real wage. Thus policymakers can engineer lower unemployment only through deception. But “man is a thinking, expectant being,” as Mr Phelps has put it. Eventually workers will cotton on, demanding still higher wages to offset the rising cost of living. They can be duped for as long as inflation stays one step ahead of their rising expectations of what it will be.
The stable trade-off depicted by the Phillips curve is thus a dangerous mirage. The economy will recover its equilibrium only when workers' expectations are fulfilled, prices turn out as anticipated, and they no longer sell their labour under false pretences. But equilibrium does not, sadly, imply full employment. Mr Phelps argued that inflation will not settle until unemployment rises to its “natural rate”, leaving some workers mouldering on the shelf. Given economists' almost theological commitment to the notion that markets clear, the presence of unemployment in the world requires a theodicy to explain it. Mr Phelps is willing to entertain several. But in much of his work he contends that unemployment is necessary to cow workers, ensuring their loyalty to the company and their diligence on the job, at a wage the company can afford to pay.
“Natural” does not mean optimal. Nor, Mr Phelps has written, does it mean “a pristine element of nature not susceptible to intervention by man.” Natural simply means impervious to central bankers' efforts to change it, however much money they print.
Economists, including some of his own students, commonly take this natural rate to be slow-moving, if not constant, and devote a great deal of effort to estimating it. Mr Phelps, by contrast, has been more anxious to explain its fluctuations, and to recommend measures to lower it. His book “Structural Slumps”, published in 1994, is an ambitious attempt to provide a general theory of how the natural rate of unemployment evolves. Some of the factors that he considered important—unemployment benefits or payroll taxes, for example—are widely accepted parts of the story. Others are more idiosyncratic. He and his French collaborator, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, have, for example, blamed Europe's mounting unemployment in the 1980s in part on Ronald Reagan's budget deficits, which were expansionary at home, but squeezed employment in the rest of the world.
A few years ago David Warsh, an economic journalist, lamented that the glare of the Nobel prize left other equally deserving economists, such as Mr Phelps, languishing “in the half-lit penumbra of the shortlist”. This week, after an unaccountably long lag, professional acclaim for this bold, purposeful theorist finally converged on its natural rate.
 
 
 
 

r...@bendbroadband.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 3:31:18 PM10/25/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
Bravo

----- 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2006, 7:39:00 PM10/26/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion

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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 1:41:35 AM10/27/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
You are right that the phrase "living wage" is not accurate because

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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 11:46:56 AM10/27/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Also living wage is a wage you can live on and you can not live on two
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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 12:16:56 PM10/27/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
Since 1975, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by 25%.
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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 2:41:32 PM10/27/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion

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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 2:45:55 PM10/27/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion

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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 3:35:05 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
I not only STRONGLY agree with the minimum wage (and it should be the 14.66 or whatever the figure actually is) but it seems to me that there is some merit to considering also a maximum wage!

----- Original Message -----
From: tode...@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:46 am
Subject: Re: model flawed

>

Wes Wagner

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 3:42:50 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
Come on now, that is just trolling!

:)

-Wes

r...@bendbroadband.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 8:53:21 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com

As you wish

But consider how the idea of a minimum wage must have sounded when it was first proposed

Wes Wagner

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 9:11:59 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, I am still trying to recover from that one.... ;)

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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 9:53:56 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.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

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 10:43:43 PM10/27/06
to oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.com
There would be people out there who's capability to produce exceeds 100x the minimum wage who may otherwise not be incentivised to do so. Honestly, if you have this much deep seeded anger towards your fellow man for their success, you might want to consider something more productive than legislation, such as therapy, introspection and self-actualization. In the end you will accomplish more and be more productive and satisfied with yourself.

Sincerely,
Wes Wagner

tode...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 11:25:35 AM10/28/06
to Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion
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 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