40 replies to this topic

[The Warrior]

 

I wouldn't call it minimum, i'd call it "Living Wage"

I'd call it layoffs or extreme inflation. 

 

I don't see what is so difficult for people to understand about this. There is a cause and effect to these things. If people expect fast food restaurants to raise their minimum wage to $15/hour, one of two things will occur:

1) Layoffs

2) Extreme inflation

 

People will either lose their jobs and be making nothing or your hamburger will cost $56. There is no third option.

 

The people behind the $15 minimum wage are not trying to earn a living wage. They are asking for it to be given to them. This is a fundamental problem with our society. You are not entitled to something just because you think you deserve it. You have to work for something if you want it.

 

I worked in a fast food restaurant during my senior year in high school and then off and on throughout college when I was home for breaks/vacations and made $7.50/hour. I even went back to the restaurant after graduating college and managed the store for almost a year and only made $11/hour. I never expected to make a living working there, nor did I want to. I was only there to make some money until I found a career that actually required something of me.

 

If you want something in life you have to work for it. If you don't want to work for it then you aren't going to get it and you need to adjust the way that you live accordingly. I consider myself to be in the middle class and I've worked to get to where I am. I don't expect to live like I'm in the upper class. I don't spend money on stupid non-essential things on a regular basis. Now that doesn't mean that I don't splurge from time-to-time but I am generally protective of what I have earned. If you want a better life, make a better life for yourself. Get an education. Learn a trade. Develop valuable skills. Just stop pretending that you deserve something and should demand it from the government just because.

[DarkFox]

 

 

I wouldn't call it minimum, i'd call it "Living Wage"

I'd call it layoffs or extreme inflation. 

 

I don't see what is so difficult for people to understand about this. There is a cause and effect to these things. If people expect fast food restaurants to raise their minimum wage to $15/hour, one of two things will occur:

1) Layoffs

2) Extreme inflation

 

People will either lose their jobs and be making nothing or your hamburger will cost $56. There is no third option.

 

The people behind the $15 minimum wage are not trying to earn a living wage. They are asking for it to be given to them. This is a fundamental problem with our society. You are not entitled to something just because you think you deserve it. You have to work for something if you want it.

 

I worked in a fast food restaurant during my senior year in high school and then off and on throughout college when I was home for breaks/vacations and made $7.50/hour. I even went back to the restaurant after graduating college and managed the store for almost a year and only made $11/hour. I never expected to make a living working there, nor did I want to. I was only there to make some money until I found a career that actually required something of me.

 

If you want something in life you have to work for it. If you don't want to work for it then you aren't going to get it and you need to adjust the way that you live accordingly. I consider myself to be in the middle class and I've worked to get to where I am. I don't expect to live like I'm in the upper class. I don't spend money on stupid non-essential things on a regular basis. Now that doesn't mean that I don't splurge from time-to-time but I am generally protective of what I have earned. If you want a better life, make a better life for yourself. Get an education. Learn a trade. Develop valuable skills. Just stop pretending that you deserve something and should demand it from the government just because.

 

 

Inflation will always be there, infact it has been increasing even without minimum wage's help.

Losing jobs because of raising the minimum wage is a myth.  Hell here's a few more

 

huffingtonpost

The daily Dot

Alternet

Forbes

 

As for working towards a career that is fine, but I know several college graduates that took 2+ years to find a job after graduating. All while paying student loans and working minimum wage and barely affording rent. Plus it is easy to say that when the opportunity is there, many people I know would never be able to go to trade school, let alone a college. 

[hilowe]

Now I do not believe that people should get paid $15 to drop some fries and nuggets in a paper bag, but they certainly deserve better than working hard and being in poverty in America.

Then start dropping hard drives into computers, drop engines into cars, drop pipe into the ground... I drop mail in the post office and make more than that. These jobs are not created to care for families... they are created to train kids for life. No one deserves it until they earn it.

 
Those jobs are all limited. Imagine that every person doing the fast food jobs now got those jobs. Employers would pay less because there are more people, and suddenly even more people are out of luck. Plus with the advancement of technology would cause a lot of those jobs will be eaten up in my lifetime by robots.

I just read something recently that there are quite a few job openings that can't be filled because of drug testing requirements.

Of course, I can't find the news article that this was in, but the gist I got was, there are plenty of jobs available, but nobody to fill them because they can't pass the drug test.

[DarkFox]

 

 

I just read something recently that there are quite a few job openings that can't be filled because of drug testing requirements.

Of course, I can't find the news article that this was in, but the gist I got was, there are plenty of jobs available, but nobody to fill them because they can't pass the drug test.

 

 

I wasn't able to find anything off of a quick google search, if you come across it again i would be interested in seeing it.

[hilowe]

The little I'm remembering, it was jobs like construction (similar to what Lys was saying above) and "drivers" (that's the term I remember them using, if it was local delivery drivers or over the road truckers, I can't tell you).

I'll take another look, see what I can find again. I can't remember if I saw it on Google news or my phone.

Edit: Changed search terms up a little bit, and it was the first story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html?_r=0

Edit 2: Looks like it's local delivery drivers that were being referenced in that story. Pretty sure, though, that over the road guys have to be tested as well.

My workplace does a lot of work with the federal government, so there's an initial test and a random testing after that... Not a problem for me, my drug of choice is alcohol, after work.

Edited by hilowe, 18 May 2016 - 03:56 PM.

[The Warrior]

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it minimum, i'd call it "Living Wage"

I'd call it layoffs or extreme inflation. 

 

I don't see what is so difficult for people to understand about this. There is a cause and effect to these things. If people expect fast food restaurants to raise their minimum wage to $15/hour, one of two things will occur:

1) Layoffs

2) Extreme inflation

 

People will either lose their jobs and be making nothing or your hamburger will cost $56. There is no third option.

 

The people behind the $15 minimum wage are not trying to earn a living wage. They are asking for it to be given to them. This is a fundamental problem with our society. You are not entitled to something just because you think you deserve it. You have to work for something if you want it.

 

I worked in a fast food restaurant during my senior year in high school and then off and on throughout college when I was home for breaks/vacations and made $7.50/hour. I even went back to the restaurant after graduating college and managed the store for almost a year and only made $11/hour. I never expected to make a living working there, nor did I want to. I was only there to make some money until I found a career that actually required something of me.

 

If you want something in life you have to work for it. If you don't want to work for it then you aren't going to get it and you need to adjust the way that you live accordingly. I consider myself to be in the middle class and I've worked to get to where I am. I don't expect to live like I'm in the upper class. I don't spend money on stupid non-essential things on a regular basis. Now that doesn't mean that I don't splurge from time-to-time but I am generally protective of what I have earned. If you want a better life, make a better life for yourself. Get an education. Learn a trade. Develop valuable skills. Just stop pretending that you deserve something and should demand it from the government just because.

 

 

Inflation will always be there, infact it has been increasing even without minimum wage's help.

Losing jobs because of raising the minimum wage is a myth.  Hell here's a few more

 

huffingtonpost

The daily Dot

Alternet

Forbes

It looks like jobs are already being lost to me:

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/13/wendys-increases-self-service-kiosks-overcome-minimum-wage-hikes

 

 

As for working towards a career that is fine, but I know several college graduates that took 2+ years to find a job after graduating. All while paying student loans and working minimum wage and barely affording rent. Plus it is easy to say that when the opportunity is there, many people I know would never be able to go to trade school, let alone a college.

I came out of college with plenty of student loans, rent, and other bills and it took me a year to start my career.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't reasons why people are working fast food jobs but you can't honestly make the case that they all are there because they have to be. There are plenty of options available for people to receive funding towards an education (including thousands of scholarships given and accommodations made for minorities and people from lower class families).

[DarkFox]

It looks like jobs are already being lost to me:   http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/13/wendys-increases-self-service-kiosks-overcome-minimum-wage-hikes

 

 

Yet in one of the links I posted showed a drastic drop in the unemployment rate.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that there aren't reasons why people are working fast food jobs but you can't honestly make the case that they all are there because they have to be. There are plenty of options available for people to receive funding towards an education (including thousands of scholarships given and accommodations made for minorities and people from lower class families).

 

 

Of course not all of them, but a good portion of them are trapped, and that is the point. Lets say that only 20% of them have no options; don't you think that is 20% too many? Especially when there is no proof that it would impact us negatively?

[Lysistrata]

LMFAO! My first job, I was making $2.50 an hour at a Music Plus record store. Rent for my first apartment was $150.00 a month. Gas was about 60 cents a gallon. A pack of smokes was 50 cents from a vending machine. A postage stamp was 13 cents.

 

This is what inflation and taxes do... and it makes no difference. The more people make, the more people have to charge for it.

[DarkFox]

LMFAO! My first job, I was making $2.50 an hour at a Music Plus record store. Rent for my first apartment was $150.00 a month. Gas was about 60 cents a gallon. A pack of smokes was 50 cents from a vending machine. A postage stamp was 13 cents.

 

This is what inflation and taxes do... and it makes no difference. The more people make, the more people have to charge for it.

 

But minimum wage hasn't been keeping up with inflation. It has been outpacing it for years. The buying power is lopsided. Yet things are actually cheaper now than ever before. Labor, materials, and refining processes. 

 

The national minimum wage in 1978 was $2.65 adjusting to inflation that is $9.72. The current average national minimum wage is now $7.25. So just going off of that your first job you would have netted about $315 a month ($1.97/hr), versus the $400 you were getting ($2.5/hr). Also none of this is factoring in taxes and as you've said they have gone up. Here I thought the future was supposed to be better and brighter.

 

 

To add to this to compare the two weekly incomes

 

1978, 40 hours at $2.65  plus inflation would be $388.8 per week. ($1555.2 per month)

2016, 40 hours at $7.25 would equal $290 per week. ($1160 per month)

Edited by DarkFox, 18 May 2016 - 05:53 PM.

[Lysistrata]

It's not the job of the Federal Government to fix, and I have not worked for minimum wage since. All states have their own minimum wage... a Federal minimum is not practical, and only used by Democrats to piss people off and kill incentive for anyone to hire. The Federal minimum... if any... should be under what states have set.

[DarkFox]

The federal government isn't the main factor. The fact is the minimum wage is too low for many reasons, and I have yet to see any counter point here that is backed by fact, or a valid news source

[Lysistrata]

Then move to a state with a higher minimum wage if that's what you need. I don't, have not, and will never again, work for minimum. California and Washington are two that I know of that is on that road. Look for economic disaster from there soon, because business and consumers will adapt to whatever hardship they impose.

[DarkFox]

Mine is quite high and let me be clear, I am paid above minimum. If there is any economic disasters from those states it is because of state governments micromanaging funds, which has been a staple for Washington. However with weed being legal there I seriously doubt it will happen and there are no signs of that occurring.

[onbekende]

Making the entire USA a 15$/h minimum wage is indeed shortsighted, but I hear that you conservatives like to play hard to get and then go for a middle ground so starting with 15$/h universally is good no?

 

no wait, you conservatives just play hardball and ignore any form of compromise cause this is "weak".

 

As for the Wendy's article, you do know that the "disasterous minimum wage" isn't yet eve close to being implemented yet they will do those kiosks to save money. Know why? DarkFox said it! Greed.

 

I more then happily pay my "largest in the world" income taxes so the state can fund a meriad of (social)programs meant to uplift everyone but specifically the weakest and poorest among us to become people to also pay these taxes for the next group. Here I thought christianity was founded on helping the weak, I guess this goes as far as the people you see (or people you want to see).

 

As for the argument of moochers, funnely enough I don't like those either and don't mind them getting a kick under their ass. Sadly some moochers also excist in the form of "landowners" and "homeowners", both garning alot of $$ with relative low taxes on them. And they are the fellows that feel a need to go stash that $$ somewhere "safe" aswell.

 

Perhaps the first thing you guy Trump should do is make every penny that goes outside the US, a penny lost to the US Treasury (aka, anything moving abroad loses its value). See howmuch money suddenly turns up being stashed for nothing but interests and interests and golden smartphones with diamonds.

[hilowe]

Making the entire USA a 15$/h minimum wage is indeed shortsighted, but I hear that you conservatives like to play hard to get and then go for a middle ground so starting with 15$/h universally is good no?
 
no wait, you conservatives just play hardball and ignore any form of compromise cause this is "weak".

Here's my opinion, I'm sure Lys will chime in later.

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to make a nationwide minimum wage? Or protect the environment? Or about a dozen more items the federal government is doing that it hasn't been specifically been told it can do?

Personally, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage, but it should be determined locally, not a nationwide thing. Like has been said before, the cost of living in California is much higher than, say, South Dakota. A federal minimum wage is either not going to be enough in California, or way too much in South Dakota.

Ihe problem I have with a huge hike in minimum wage is, who pays for that? Me, the consumer does... in the form of raised prices. Or, by the business putting in more automation to keep prices down if they think the consumer isn't going to pay the higher prices.

I more then happily pay my "largest in the world" income taxes so the state can fund a meriad of (social)programs meant to uplift everyone but specifically the weakest and poorest among us to become people to also pay these taxes for the next group. Here I thought christianity was founded on helping the weak, I guess this goes as far as the people you see (or people you want to see).

I'm all for a hand up, not a hand out. Help someone get back on their feet, not pay for them to stay at home and do nothing to help society in general.
 

As for the argument of moochers, funnely enough I don't like those either and don't mind them getting a kick under their ass. Sadly some moochers also excist in the form of "landowners" and "homeowners", both garning alot of $$ with relative low taxes on them. And they are the fellows that feel a need to go stash that $$ somewhere "safe" aswell.

To the first sentence, amen. How do we give those people a kick in the ass? In most cases, it's really hard.

To the last part, it depends. I grew up on a farm (Mom and Dad had about 3/4 of a section of land, and for those that don't know, a section is 1 square mile of land). If they didn't have lowered taxes, they'd have been run out of business long before I was born. They had a lot of money in land and equipment to be able to produce, mainly, corn, soybeans, pork, beef, and milk.
 

Perhaps the first thing you guy Trump should do is make every penny that goes outside the US, a penny lost to the US Treasury (aka, anything moving abroad loses its value). See howmuch money suddenly turns up being stashed for nothing but interests and interests and golden smartphones with diamonds.

Ok, listening to talking heads again, but this guy makes sense to me. His basic premise is "money goes where it's treated best." Right now, US corporate taxes are something like 35%, so money goes off shore to places where taxes are 15%-20%. The problem is, one of those places is China. The way this guy explained it, if a corporation wanted to move it's money from China to the US, they'd pay taxes on the money they were moving. They'd then get sued by their investors, because they aren't being fiscally responsible (and the investors would rightfully win, because the corporation is not being responsible with the investors money).

Essentially, what this guy said is, Trump and others want to move their money from places where it could be taken from them (like China) and bring it to the US. To do that, Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rates to encourage money coming back. He made it sound like (and this is the part where I'm a little iffy, because it sounds a lot like Reagan's trickle down economics), when the money is here, companies can use that to invest in the US, and create jobs here.

I know this isn't what you were talking about in the last point, Betsy, but I did want to point out that, supposedly, there is good reasoning for most of what Trump is proposing.

[Lysistrata]

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

This man gets it. Anytime you allow the Federal Government to step outside their authority... that is another piece of liberty we will never see again. I love this man. 

[onbekende]

 

Making the entire USA a 15$/h minimum wage is indeed shortsighted, but I hear that you conservatives like to play hard to get and then go for a middle ground so starting with 15$/h universally is good no?
 
no wait, you conservatives just play hardball and ignore any form of compromise cause this is "weak".

Here's my opinion, I'm sure Lys will chime in later.

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to make a nationwide minimum wage? Or protect the environment? Or about a dozen more items the federal government is doing that it hasn't been specifically been told it can do?

Personally, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage, but it should be determined locally, not a nationwide thing. Like has been said before, the cost of living in California is much higher than, say, South Dakota. A federal minimum wage is either not going to be enough in California, or way too much in South Dakota.

Ihe problem I have with a huge hike in minimum wage is, who pays for that? Me, the consumer does... in the form of raised prices. Or, by the business putting in more automation to keep prices down if they think the consumer isn't going to pay the higher prices.

 

.
Yes to more localized effort, sad part is that not many budge and are even more likely to obstruct the moment the federal goverment comes forth with any kind of plan, regardless of party presently in power.
.

 

I more then happily pay my "largest in the world" income taxes so the state can fund a meriad of (social)programs meant to uplift everyone but specifically the weakest and poorest among us to become people to also pay these taxes for the next group. Here I thought christianity was founded on helping the weak, I guess this goes as far as the people you see (or people you want to see).

I'm all for a hand up, not a hand out. Help someone get back on their feet, not pay for them to stay at home and do nothing to help society in general.

 

.
Same here, thing is you need some organisation then to "police" the entire thing. Heck you need one for the presen programs already, do you guys have much in term of people who check up on these?
.

 

As for the argument of moochers, funnely enough I don't like those either and don't mind them getting a kick under their ass. Sadly some moochers also excist in the form of "landowners" and "homeowners", both garning alot of $$ with relative low taxes on them. And they are the fellows that feel a need to go stash that $$ somewhere "safe" aswell.

To the first sentence, amen. How do we give those people a kick in the ass? In most cases, it's really hard.

To the last part, it depends. I grew up on a farm (Mom and Dad had about 3/4 of a section of land, and for those that don't know, a section is 1 square mile of land). If they didn't have lowered taxes, they'd have been run out of business long before I was born. They had a lot of money in land and equipment to be able to produce, mainly, corn, soybeans, pork, beef, and milk.

 

.
Well farmers I would make a different catagory, those do stuff with the land for society.
.

 

Perhaps the first thing you guy Trump should do is make every penny that goes outside the US, a penny lost to the US Treasury (aka, anything moving abroad loses its value). See howmuch money suddenly turns up being stashed for nothing but interests and interests and golden smartphones with diamonds.

Ok, listening to talking heads again, but this guy makes sense to me. His basic premise is "money goes where it's treated best." Right now, US corporate taxes are something like 35%, so money goes off shore to places where taxes are 15%-20%. The problem is, one of those places is China. The way this guy explained it, if a corporation wanted to move it's money from China to the US, they'd pay taxes on the money they were moving. They'd then get sued by their investors, because they aren't being fiscally responsible (and the investors would rightfully win, because the corporation is not being responsible with the investors money).

Essentially, what this guy said is, Trump and others want to move their money from places where it could be taken from them (like China) and bring it to the US. To do that, Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rates to encourage money coming back. He made it sound like (and this is the part where I'm a little iffy, because it sounds a lot like Reagan's trickle down economics), when the money is here, companies can use that to invest in the US, and create jobs here.

I know this isn't what you were talking about in the last point, Betsy, but I did want to point out that, supposedly, there is good reasoning for most of what Trump is proposing.

 

 .
The goal is nifty and praise worthy, it sadly is the execution that bothers most.

 

Money indeed will go where it earns the most, hence my idea of making anything that leave being made worthless (offcourse gross overreaction and unworkable anyway).

 

The US is mostly now in the tertiary sector, inching towards a what could be called the "quaternary sector" (aka automatisation). Just affraid that trying to bring back alot of primary and secondary sector jobs will likewise mean a cut in the overall wage of workers as the costs of production are just that much higher, not just cause of wages themselfes.
. 

 

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

This man gets it. Anytime you allow the Federal Government to step outside their authority... that is another piece of liberty we will never see again. I love this man.

 

.

Just sad that your "liberty" is a personal one and not a soceital one.

[hilowe]

Making the entire USA a 15$/h minimum wage is indeed shortsighted, but I hear that you conservatives like to play hard to get and then go for a middle ground so starting with 15$/h universally is good no?
 
no wait, you conservatives just play hardball and ignore any form of compromise cause this is "weak".

Here's my opinion, I'm sure Lys will chime in later.

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to make a nationwide minimum wage? Or protect the environment? Or about a dozen more items the federal government is doing that it hasn't been specifically been told it can do?

Personally, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage, but it should be determined locally, not a nationwide thing. Like has been said before, the cost of living in California is much higher than, say, South Dakota. A federal minimum wage is either not going to be enough in California, or way too much in South Dakota.

Ihe problem I have with a huge hike in minimum wage is, who pays for that? Me, the consumer does... in the form of raised prices. Or, by the business putting in more automation to keep prices down if they think the consumer isn't going to pay the higher prices.

.
Yes to more localized effort, sad part is that not many budge and are even more likely to obstruct the moment the federal goverment comes forth with any kind of plan, regardless of party presently in power.
.

Well, the way I'm looking at it, the federal government shouldn't have a role in it, so there wouldn't be anything to obstruct.

Also, local elections are a whole lot easier to influence. I am regularly emailing and calling my local representatives (both city and state level). I always have a moment in my head before I hit send on an email, where I see them checking email and going "not this fucking guy again". For example, based on some experiences that have hit a lot closer to home for me than I really like, I'm working on getting my concealed carry permit in Nebraska. In looking into that, and the training that is necessary, I found a local group that advocates for firearms owners in the state. Looking on their board, I'm seeing a lot of issues and concerns that I had never considered before. One example is, the state has no requirements for size, color, and location of signs prohibiting weapons, other than the owner has to post "conspicuous notice". A mall here has a "code of conduct" sign that is inside the main doors, item 12 is no weapons. Does that count as "conspicuous notice"? Not in my mind, because I have to actually enter the facility, and read through 11 other items to find it. Would a police officer and a judge agree with me? I have no idea, and really don't want to be a guinea pig to find out. I've been contacting my state senator to push my point that we need something like what Texas requires (they have requirements for size, colors, and location, if the business owner doesn't use the appropriate sign, then the sign carries no weight of law).

Sorry for the long story, just trying to say that you can get to the local politicians and introduce ideas that federal politicians will ignore. (At least in the US)

I more then happily pay my "largest in the world" income taxes so the state can fund a meriad of (social)programs meant to uplift everyone but specifically the weakest and poorest among us to become people to also pay these taxes for the next group. Here I thought christianity was founded on helping the weak, I guess this goes as far as the people you see (or people you want to see).

I'm all for a hand up, not a hand out. Help someone get back on their feet, not pay for them to stay at home and do nothing to help society in general.

.
Same here, thing is you need some organisation then to "police" the entire thing. Heck you need one for the presen programs already, do you guys have much in term of people who check up on these?
.

Supposedly, yes. Having never had any personal interaction with them, no idea if they actually do their job, or what limits they have set on them in their job.

I remember my sister telling me a story years ago (this would have been mid-90's), she was working at a facility that produced hog confinement equipment, and the company was looking for a new employee (welder, if I remember correctly). Guy came in, put in an application. On the application, this guy was asking for $30/hour to start. Company asked specifically if he would take anything less to start, and he replied no. Few days later, she got a call from the state, asking if this person had come in and put in an application. She replied yes, and the conversation ended. She looked up who was calling, and figured out that the guy was on some government assistance program that required him to go and apply for jobs. The sky high starting pay was his way of working the system to stay on the program and not get a new job.

The goal is nifty and praise worthy, it sadly is the execution that bothers most.

Yeah, especially when the news media reports it as "Trump favors the rich by lowering corporate taxes."

I will admit to not 100% trusting him, but it's much easier for me to believe him than Hilary.
 

The US is mostly now in the tertiary sector, inching towards a what could be called the "quaternary sector" (aka automatisation). Just affraid that trying to bring back alot of primary and secondary sector jobs will likewise mean a cut in the overall wage of workers as the costs of production are just that much higher, not just cause of wages themselfes.
.

Never studied econ before, but I would definitely agree with the tertiary sector thing. My job would fall under the consultant area.

As for the primary and secondary sector jobs, I know there are some people giving up "high paying" jobs (similar to mine) to get land and go back to farming because they want to. Reasons I've heard are less stressful and more freedom, ie they want to go to see their kids at some school function during the day, they have that ability without asking permission to take vacation.

As for the wages, I really don't know. If there is a cut in wages, that would mean that products would need to get cheaper as well.... Not sure if there is an acceptable way to do that anymore.

The federal government is given very specific powers by the Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for state and local government, and individuals.

This man gets it. Anytime you allow the Federal Government to step outside their authority... that is another piece of liberty we will never see again. I love this man.

.
Just sad that your "liberty" is a personal one and not a soceital one.

Personally, I don't think it's sad. What it's supposed to mean is that I can what I want, and as long as I'm not actually causing harm to you, you can't do anything to stop it. Turn that around, you can do what you want, and no matter how much it upsets me, unless you're causing me harm, I can't stop you.

[onbekende]

 

.
Yes to more localized effort, sad part is that not many budge and are even more likely to obstruct the moment the federal goverment comes forth with any kind of plan, regardless of party presently in power.
.

Well, the way I'm looking at it, the federal government shouldn't have a role in it, so there wouldn't be anything to obstruct.

Also, local elections are a whole lot easier to influence. I am regularly emailing and calling my local representatives (both city and state level). I always have a moment in my head before I hit send on an email, where I see them checking email and going "not this fucking guy again". For example, based on some experiences that have hit a lot closer to home for me than I really like, I'm working on getting my concealed carry permit in Nebraska. In looking into that, and the training that is necessary, I found a local group that advocates for firearms owners in the state. Looking on their board, I'm seeing a lot of issues and concerns that I had never considered before. One example is, the state has no requirements for size, color, and location of signs prohibiting weapons, other than the owner has to post "conspicuous notice". A mall here has a "code of conduct" sign that is inside the main doors, item 12 is no weapons. Does that count as "conspicuous notice"? Not in my mind, because I have to actually enter the facility, and read through 11 other items to find it. Would a police officer and a judge agree with me? I have no idea, and really don't want to be a guinea pig to find out. I've been contacting my state senator to push my point that we need something like what Texas requires (they have requirements for size, colors, and location, if the business owner doesn't use the appropriate sign, then the sign carries no weight of law).

Sorry for the long story, just trying to say that you can get to the local politicians and introduce ideas that federal politicians will ignore. (At least in the US)

 

.
Not many actually keep a line to their local representation, or at best just to the fellow they voted for. Even less offcourse when you move up the food chain, hence so many feel disenfrenchized (word? ) and meaningless when it comes to the "larger" policial fields. Needing a bigger voice sadly never leads to the more rational part getting that bigger voice.

 

As for your example, a state wide procedure/requirement would need to be issued. It not being done means atleast a part of your state does not feel a need to do so, in any way it could be handled.
.

 

.
Same here, thing is you need some organisation then to "police" the entire thing. Heck you need one for the presen programs already, do you guys have much in term of people who check up on these?
.

Supposedly, yes. Having never had any personal interaction with them, no idea if they actually do their job, or what limits they have set on them in their job.

I remember my sister telling me a story years ago (this would have been mid-90's), she was working at a facility that produced hog confinement equipment, and the company was looking for a new employee (welder, if I remember correctly). Guy came in, put in an application. On the application, this guy was asking for $30/hour to start. Company asked specifically if he would take anything less to start, and he replied no. Few days later, she got a call from the state, asking if this person had come in and put in an application. She replied yes, and the conversation ended. She looked up who was calling, and figured out that the guy was on some government assistance program that required him to go and apply for jobs. The sky high starting pay was his way of working the system to stay on the program and not get a new job.

 

.
Such people excist yes, more then likely cause the verification call is just 1 question. Humans are extremely well versed in manipulating a system to their benefit . Doesn't mean it is a common occurance, still many would find such behaviour in itself morally wrong and would refrain from doing it. Or so I wish to hope
.

 

The goal is nifty and praise worthy, it sadly is the execution that bothers most.

Yeah, especially when the news media reports it as "Trump favors the rich by lowering corporate taxes."

I will admit to not 100% trusting him, but it's much easier for me to believe him than Hilary.

 

.
Headlines are a thing since newspapers could spread the news faster then humans under their own power. If only news-outlets excisted that could be seen as "unbiased" in terms of coverage. I guess you guys got that C-Span stuff at best for such a news-outlet, unless offcourse they get viewed a sockpuppets of the "current regime".

 

My main issue with him is the part about this being both a political as a societal position. And while Hillary might fail on #2, Trump tends to view #1 as a powergame in black/white to easely. I have no doubt that he can be political, or rather diplomatical, sadly that isn't what he is portraiting nor is it what is getting him votes. Couple that with him getting the protest-votes, you are off even worse as those voters aren't known for political engagement or knowledge of society itself.
.

 

The US is mostly now in the tertiary sector, inching towards a what could be called the "quaternary sector" (aka automatisation). Just affraid that trying to bring back alot of primary and secondary sector jobs will likewise mean a cut in the overall wage of workers as the costs of production are just that much higher, not just cause of wages themselfes.
.

Never studied econ before, but I would definitely agree with the tertiary sector thing. My job would fall under the consultant area.

As for the primary and secondary sector jobs, I know there are some people giving up "high paying" jobs (similar to mine) to get land and go back to farming because they want to. Reasons I've heard are less stressful and more freedom, ie they want to go to see their kids at some school function during the day, they have that ability without asking permission to take vacation.

As for the wages, I really don't know. If there is a cut in wages, that would mean that products would need to get cheaper as well.... Not sure if there is an acceptable way to do that anymore.

 

.
I won't say I know econ either. As for the few that "go back to their roots", good for them, if they can stay afloat in a world that now basically mandates a 2-income family as norm while less then a century ago just the man going out was plenty to sustain a sizeable family.

 

Cutting wages will make nobody happy, or rather make no employee happy. Neither would it mean that the products itself become cheaper as base costs are higher which might not offset the decrease in wages. Its just something that has grown and can't easely be changed unless you very drastically influence the economy itself. Which is ironic as most people voting for Trump would position themselfes on a pure capitalism approach to economy (aka no gov interferance), hence the dissonance in most of his campaighn.

 

And lets not even consider that with the automation revolution, we might truely transform into a "give everyone $$ for life and let them work for pleasure" type deal. The jobs created in the tertiary sector are obviously smaller then what the primairy or the secundairy ever needed. The gov counterbalancing this by conflating itself with workers makes nobody happy likewise.
.

 

.
Just sad that your "liberty" is a personal one and not a soceital one.

Personally, I don't think it's sad. What it's supposed to mean is that I can what I want, and as long as I'm not actually causing harm to you, you can't do anything to stop it. Turn that around, you can do what you want, and no matter how much it upsets me, unless you're causing me harm, I can't stop you.

 

.

Then we go into "what is harm", cause last I checked, faith/believing itself does you no harm >_>

 

Complete personal liberty can only be found by giving everyone an island, and you don't need a rockerscientist to explain why this would breakdown rather fast. Interactions will happen, and aslong as governmental rules are inline with societal rules, all goes well.

[hilowe]

Gonna have start breaking this up a little bit. Really nice to be able to respond to something in line with it, but that post editing is taking a while.

Then we go into "what is harm", cause last I checked, faith/believing itself does you no harm >_> Complete personal liberty can only be found by giving everyone an island, and you don't need a rockerscientist to explain why this would breakdown rather fast. Interactions will happen, and aslong as governmental rules are inline with societal rules, all goes well.

I'm guessing you're talking about gay marriage with this one (I'm a little slow sometimes, especially after I've eaten lunch). What two consenting adults do in their own home is no business of mine.

Now, if you're talking about the current transgender bathroom issue, I do have some issues with that, just because of the potential I see for harm to young children. Actually, writing this post reminds me that I needed to do some research, but this essentially explains the fear that I have. In North Carolina, I was told that the leader of one of the pro-sides (ie, for allowing people to use the bathroom that they identify with, not that is on their birth certificate) is a registered sex offender.

Now I heard that, realized I needed to research it, then forgot about it when I had the chance to, and now can't remember which group it was or who specifically was being referred to in the conversation. But that is my fear, that this would open up my own children to potential issues.

Such people excist yes, more then likely cause the verification call is just 1 question. Humans are extremely well versed in manipulating a system to their benefit . Doesn't mean it is a common occurance, still many would find such behaviour in itself morally wrong and would refrain from doing it. Or so I wish to hope

I'm afraid it's more common that you think. You're coming at society from a higher moral ground, I'm coming at it from the stance of "what moral ground?" The reality is, thankfully, somewhere in the middle (the fact that you appear to have a high moral ground in your thinking and posting and I would like to think I do, proves my point is not 100% accurate).

Not many actually keep a line to their local representation, or at best just to the fellow they voted for. Even less offcourse when you move up the food chain, hence so many feel disenfrenchized (word? ) and meaningless when it comes to the "larger" policial fields. Needing a bigger voice sadly never leads to the more rational part getting that bigger voice. As for your example, a state wide procedure/requirement would need to be issued. It not being done means at least a part of your state does not feel a need to do so, in any way it could be handled.

My example is actually the state requirement. I think it got put in, and nobody played devils advocate for what it really meant and how loose that definition really was. I've emailed and called my state representative to try and get it fixed, but it didn't happen this legislative period. Hopefully next year, myself and others can make it more apparent and actually get something done about it.

As for the rest of it, in some cases yes and no. A lot of people don't have regular communication with their elected representative (whether they voted for the person or not). In other cases (and this is me right now), people feel like they're ignored. I've contacted my federal representatives about a couple of specific bills, and essentially got canned responses to everything saying why he won't support the bills I'm interested in (like he's a co-sponsor on some other bill). When I contact a second time, I get a second canned response, reiterating why he won't support the bill I like.