Left vs. Right

[Pure]

'arch'?

In the context of this forum, I represent an 'arch' conservative viewpoint.

Not actually. You don't in fact subscribe to 'individualism,' since you want to minimize government control of the person, but allow maximal corporate control of him or her--e.g., the XYZ Corporation owns the roads he travels on, and can ban him from 'private property.'

You also deny individual privacy of one's body, apparently favoring the state's checking on the contents of every woman's womb to enforce childbearing on her if she's having an unplanned pregnancy, including from rape. (Here departing from Ayn Rand, your supposed icon, who was 'pro choice.').

There are 'anarchic' individualists, the kind who say, like Bookchin, 'small is good.' They are idealists wishing for freedom from all giant, overbearing structures, governmental or corporate or church. You are not one of those.

You're a catfish wishing to known as a feline, but wishing don't make it so.

 

[Liar]

It's devastatingly simple:

Do you strive for return to a society structure that has been and we know works, although not optimally? Then you're a conservative.

Do you strive to change society into something new, and untried, but that in theory should work better? Then you're a radical.

All over the political scale, there are conservatives as well as radicals. Conservative capitalists, conservative socialists, communists, feodalists...you name it. The fact that you (I mean US political debate in general) have taken those terms out of their context and applied them as partisan buzzwords on a left/right scale is bloody annoying.

Because...what do I call a person who wants to conserve (Castro is a good example. Ya think he still want revolution.)? And what do I call a person who wants liberty, aka a liberal? I can't call them by their true name, because their true names have been kidnapped. Often by people who want the exact opposite. So in the context of this forum, there is not a good word to use for a true liberal and a true conservative.

Anyway, whis wasn't supposed to be a serious reply to the debatre, just a flippant remark that the world is turned upside down. Like your Padded Rugby thing.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Good point Liar, and true. Though in all fairness, the resurgent left in the '60's was known as the "new" left to distinguish it from traditional communist/socialist thinking, and those in power today are more properly called "Neocons" than "conservatives".

It's the urge to break everything down into two camps--us and them--that have corrupted the words.

 

[Pure]

OK, liar

those are good points as far as they go. simply map the attitude toward change. some want to keep status quo, some want gradual change (esp. holding onto what's good, that's already there), some want to overturn everthing, radical change. 'conservative' sometimes has the first or second meaning.

But the first meaning applies as well to Stalin Calvin and Hitler, as well as any 'liberal' in a period of liberalism.

More useful is some labels for the kind of government one prefers or want to bring about: Will it be minimal, serving 'business', or socially conscious and social welfare-minded. Will it affirm individual freedom and rights, or their supersession by 'the state.' Will it avoid involving itself in morals (like adultery, gay sex) or get into their enforcement. These are old dimensions. First the first alternative might be called the 'conservative' one.

Lately there is a position for 'big government' favorable to business and the military, and inclined to use the later (to make the world 'free' and open to American business), the so called 'neo con.' Notice that he or she does NOT endorse the first alternatives; instead s/he favors big government, regulation/suppression of individual rights, and the enforcement of morals.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

It's devastatingly simple:

Do you strive for return to a society structure that has been and we know works, although not optimally? Then you're a conservative.

Do you strive to change society into something new, and untried, but that in theory should work better? Then you're a radical.

All over the political scale, there are conservatives as well as radicals. Conservative capitalists, conservative socialists, communists, feodalists...you name it. The fact that you (I mean US political debate in general) have taken those terms out of their context and applied them as partisan buzzwords on a left/right scale is bloody annoying.

Because...what do I call a person who wants to conserve (Castro is a good example. Ya think he still want revolution.)? And what do I call a person who wants liberty, aka a liberal? I can't call them by their true name, because their true names have been kidnapped. Often by people who want the exact opposite. So in the context of this forum, there is not a good word to use for a true liberal and a true conservative.

Anyway, whis wasn't supposed to be a serious reply to the debatre, just a flippant remark that the world is turned upside down. Like your Padded Rugby thing.

On a first note: Lay off football, damnit!!!

On a second one: All words change meaning to those who use them. "Cool" once meant, simply, below a comfortable temperature, but not yet cold. "Hot" meant well-heated, as in food, not sexy enough to make your blood warmer. "Cool beans" meant... well, it meant beans that needed a few minutes in the microwave. You get my point. These terms being used as such are merely giving the words new meaning to those using them, in this case, in the US.

Deal with it, because we're mostly using the terms to refer to the group in general, not by referring to thier traits.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I understand what you're trying to say, Dr. M, but I don't think we're all just venting here for the sake of venting. Argument and debate have a purpose. Hopefully, through the course of it, people can find common ground and an optimal course of action. Some of that process is pointing out the fallacies and contradictions in other points of view.

I'll freely admit that I argue hard; but I don't think I argue unfairly. I try not to call people here names - my hard words are for politicians and their ideas and policies. To the extent that people identify themselves with those things, I suppose they can take offense, but I'm mindful of trying to keep the argument and ideas separate from the person in my posts.

I can understand the other side of an argument, and I can try to use that understanding to undermine the inaccurate beliefs that lead to poor choices based on that side of the argument. I can write forcefully without "shouting".

But not all positions on a given issue are equally valid. All people have worth; the same can't be said for all points of view.

Can't say that a particular post of yours comes to mind to make a judgment of your actual posts, and that isn't the point here anyway. But I will say this. You seem to, at points anyway, mistake the word "discuss" for the word "argue." If you listen to someone else's viewpoint in search of flaws, you might as well join the political landscape now, while it's prone to that sort of "debate" (we'll pretend for a moment, it deserves to be called that). You're wasting your (and our) time here.

And everyone agrees that not all points can be said to have worth. In fact, pretty much everyone believes that their point is the one with the most worth. But everyone can't be right. Everyone just thinks they are. And they believe it strongly enough (arrogantly enough, and too often, cockily enough) that they look for flaws in everyone else's points instead of listening to them and looking for the strongpoints that can be built off of or agreed with.

My intention isn't to merely be critical, and it's fairly likely (or more than fairly) that I've overestimated your intent when you posted this, but you seem to have given a good example of the type of attitude that has led to the problem.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I'll toss something in here, something that I've probably mentioned before but can't pinpoint when or where (or how many million times). My personal viewpoint is that, while we've acknowledged that it is easy to point fingers and blame, it's also easy to keep the finger-pointing within a certain arena.

I think we forget sometimes, perhaps by being one person in millions in just the US, making that one vote or one or two paragraphs, seem almost unimportant, if not trivial, that we're a part of the system that we're discussing right now. And I don't mean by voting, because once it comes to that, we're down to two or three people that we often don't want to vote for and have to make the "lesser evil" decision (though yes, the bloody machete deal did piss me off, and royally so, as does the "your leaders" comments when made by people within the US). I mean in general, we're involved. Years ago, the people who are running the show now were younger than we ar, and growing up (being sculpted) by that time's version of American culture. How they were raised, what they saw of the world and what thier culture showed them led them to be who they are, and in many ways, counseled them in making their decisions.

Basically, the village has failed the child.

Not that that's news, but I feel it's often overlooked when politics is considered. *gasp* The President lied. Where would he possibly have learned to do that?

Q_C

 

[amicus]

I thought to start a new thread...but after a page and a half and issue after issue coming to mind, I decided not to.

Here is how I began:


Right Vs Left



Dr. Mab and others have expressed a desire to see the other side of politically opposite opinions as a means to a better understand. There was also a request from many quarters for a more ‘civil’ exchange of ideas, without name called and pejorative comments concerning the intelligence and alacrity of the opponent.

I fully agree.

I do have a caveat, however; I personally think many of an extreme position, Left or Right, truly cannot comprehend the opposite position.

I shall endeavor to illustrate that caveat.

“Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day; give him a fishing pole and teach him to fish and he will feed himself and his family forever.”

A paraphrase, please do not hold me to an accurate quotation.

Let us deal with the poverty and racial imbalance in New Orleans, made painfully visible in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Left, over many years, in attempting to solve the poverty problem and the race problem, have enacted thousands of laws.

There is no, one place, to begin, so I start at random; Minimum wage.

Thought to be a good thing by most of the left, setting a federally mandated and state enforced minimum wage level, the left intended to bring those low wage workers into some kind of equality with other workers. It is generally applauded by most, but not all.

While it appears to be a socially conscious attempt to better the lot of the poor, it has actually worked to exacerbate the problem.

Prices and wages are determined by supply and demand, not by government fiat. The impact of minimum wage laws was to raise the cost of all products to level where the gain by higher wages was nullified.

Each Democratic regime attempts to raise the minimum wage, each Republican regime argues against it.

Democrats claim to be for the poor working class of people and garner allegiance to that political party.

Republicans point out that tinkering with, attempting to manage the market place oftentimes not only fails, but makes the situation much worse.

Here is the caveat: one side ‘believes’ that government is obligated to look after the less able in society by taxing the more able and redistributing the wealth. The other side rests on an understanding of the free market place and acts to keep a level playing field between labor and industry so that neither has an advantage in the free market place.

That caveat is deeper than most realize as the left does not fully embrace the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market place to regulate commerce and the standard of living.

Aside from the technical aspects of formal economics, the study of the market place also involves psychological, sociological and philosophical underpinnings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At that point, I threw up my hands and cracked a cold one.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

These terms being used as such are merely giving the words new meaning to those using them, in this case, in the US.

I'm not in the US. But never mind, the thread was after all about US politics. At least initially. So maybe local jargong is appropriate, I dunno. Because that's what it is. Local lingo on a global access forum.

Not that we're much better over here. One of our bigger political parties are called the Moderates. And they are basically the same as your neocon, minus the Jsus freaks. Probably the least moderate party we have.

Deal with it,

K. Give me satisfactory, commonly accepted terms for:

* A person whose primary goal is the liberty of the individual.
* A person whose primary goal is the preservation of the status quo.

Then I'll stop bitching.

 

[kendo1]

I would have thought the minimum wage was put in place so that workers were not abused. Not everyone is a lawyer or politician, regulating their own pay.
If there was not a minimum wage, the poor would get poorer- kind of like me!

 

[Liar]

Here is the caveat: one side ‘believes’ that government is obligated to look after the less able in society by taxing the more able and redistributing the wealth. The other side rests on an understanding of the free market place and acts to keep a level playing field between labor and industry so that neither has an advantage in the free market place.

Except that your description is heavily colored by your own values, I'd say you nailed the core of the issue. However, a person to the left of you would say that minimum wages, taxing, labor unions and so on (as well as antitrust and monopoly regulations) are there to create and uphold a level playing field between labor and industry. One that the market does not provide on it's own. And that the other side "believes" that self regulating perfection of supply and demand will bring happiness to all and end misery. It's as always, all in the perspective.

At that point, I threw up my hands and cracked a cold one.

Always an understandable cop-out, if you ask me.

 

[rgraham666]

Ha! The old 'level playing field' gambit.

But what is a playing field but a paradigm of regulations?

The rules tell you how big the field is, where the goal posts are, how you can move the ball or what ever, what equipment you can use, what the players can and cannot do, has referees watching every move and penalising players and teams that break the rules.

A game without rules is boring and dangerous. Who would want to play, say football, if the teams had no set size and everybody was armed with fully automatic weapons?

 

[Huckleman2000]

...You seem to, at points anyway, mistake the word "discuss" for the word "argue." If you listen to someone else's viewpoint in search of flaws, you might as well join the political landscape now, while it's prone to that sort of "debate" (we'll pretend for a moment, it deserves to be called that). You're wasting your (and our) time here.

And everyone agrees that not all points can be said to have worth. In fact, pretty much everyone believes that their point is the one with the most worth. But everyone can't be right. Everyone just thinks they are. And they believe it strongly enough (arrogantly enough, and too often, cockily enough) that they look for flaws in everyone else's points instead of listening to them and looking for the strongpoints that can be built off of or agreed with.

My intention isn't to merely be critical, and it's fairly likely (or more than fairly) that I've overestimated your intent when you posted this, but you seem to have given a good example of the type of attitude that has led to the problem.
Q_C

Well, forgive me for not seeking out points of agreement to contribute to a mutual circle-jerk of banality.

If "everyone agrees that not all points can be said to have worth", and "everyone can't be right", why is it wrong to look for flaws in other's points? And how can one find flaws without listening to the others' argument? Maybe you think I'm being a jerk for pointing this out, but you aren't making logical sense here.

The issue doesn't seem to be in not listening, it's in not wishing to acknowledge fallacies in others' (or one's own) posts.

"Discuss" or "argue" or "debate"; you seem to draw distinctions between these terms, and perhaps there are assumed degrees of civility associated with each. However, it seems to me that the perceived civility depends on one's point of view to begin with. I mean, I haven't called anyone a name or insulted anyone in this post or the last, yet you say I'm a "good example of the type of attitude that has led to the problem." How so?

 

[amicus]

Rgraham...."...Ha! The old 'level playing field' gambit.

But what is a playing field but a paradigm of regulations?..."

One can believe in god, or ayn rand or be entranced by John Ralston Saul, if you need someone to believe in.

By 'level playing field...", I simply meant the rule of law protecting individual and corporate rights.

You and many others on this site seem to have a bias against any two people who mutually form a corporation and do business, aka, as a separate entity.

I seldom respond to you as I sense you do not really understand that people have the right to mutually join together and conduct an enterprise as a protected entity, aka, a business, even a corporation.

Why you and your ilk despise individual enterprise and corporate enterprise (note the difference and the similarity) I do not know.

We each strive, in our own way, to find success and happiness, and each is endowed by genetic to be better at some things than others.

Were I born, incapacitated as you seem to claim, perhaps I would have a perverted view of humanity also...but I was not and do not.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Huckleman...I sense your frustration....I think, think, mind you, that most on this site are rather isolated from real life.

They express a 'Heinz 57 varieties' of acquired feelings, sensations, social accomodations and political diatribes and really have no idea of what they really think.

Imagine, really, trying to discuss anything with those who do not accept that words have precise and absolute meaning

Imagine, really, that there are those who really believe that ethics and morality is subjective and relative and dependent on the situation and circumstances.

There really is no solid ground to engage them in discussion or debate or argument on any level but the subjective.

And at the kindergarten level at that.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Amicus has a solid point when it comes to Minimum wage.

Bussinesses operate on a fairly simple modle. They purchase materials, pay labor and overhead to have it crafted into something useful. By unit, they intend to earn a particular amount of profit. It dosen't matter if they are selling directly to the consumer or to some other manufactuerer or a retailer. To operate, that price per unit has to cover both material cost and labor, plus overhead which might include power, warehouse space, advertising, packageing, and a factor for defective pieces that can't be sold.

If you artificially inflate the price of labor, the owner isn't going to grin and bare it, taking that hit from his bottom line. He will factor in the new cost of labor in his price per unit and that will be the new price he charges to continue to operate at the same profit margin. That price will be passed all the way down the line as each person who handles it pays a higher charge and inflates his own charge to reflect it until it finally reaches the consumer.

Additionally, bussiness will not make an across the boards pay jump for everyone. Those making less than the minimum will be eliminated or taken up to minimum. So the guy who has been there five years and earned three incremental raises will now be making the exact same amount as a new hire. While his total paycheck has increased, the cost of everyday goods and services will have jumped as well. His actual buying power will, in all likelyhood, have decreased, as his dollars don't go as far Anymore.

For example, if you have made 4 raises and the min was 8.00 an hour, you might be up to nine. If they min jumps to ten, you are making about 40$ a week more, but the odds of the everyday services and goods you use jumping less than that are minimal. For ease, your extra 40$ a week will likely produce about one extra 20$ bill for you after taxes, medicare and SSI. If one item you buy daily jumps by only 3 cents, that's still 21 cents out of your twenty. I think the increased proice on EVERYTHING you need will quickly eclipse the extra twenty you have to spend.

Additionally, some enterprises will simply be unable to cope with the new price of unskilled labor and fold, so many who were working will be unemployed again and not making the ten bucks now required, nor the eight bucks they used to be making. When the market sorts it all out, you will probably see a net loss in buying power for the poorest workers.

The only one who really profits from an increased min is the government, since they take a flat rate before you ever see it from your paycheck. So for them, you earning more means more tax revenue. But for you, it is unlikely to increase your buying power and will, in all likelyhood actually make you poorer in the long run. The new hire will benefit, but he too is now paying more for goods & services and won't likely see a raise for a long long time.

 

[davidwatts]

The idea here seems to be that business the the workingman's friend. Where in the history of this country has business done anything for its workers regarding salary or safety issues without being dragged kicking and screaming into it?

As for the concept of making less money being beneficial to the workers and to the business in general; someone ought to relay that sentiment to the average CEO, whose salaries over the past couple decades have skyrocketed far beyond any minimum wage hikes ever enacted. Those salaries and benefits being totally unrelated to the CEO's performance or the performance of the company as well.

Paying people as little as possible might be good bottom line sense, but when you pay staff that work full-time and do the job expected of them such a pitiful wage that they have to get public assistance to survive, that's where you lose me. I object to subsidizing the payroll of McDonald's, Wal-Mart or any other company with my tax dollars.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The idea here seems to be that business the the workingman's friend. Where in the history of this country has business done anything for its workers regarding salary or safety issues without being dragged kicking and screaming into it?

As for the concept of making less money being beneficial to the workers and to the business in general; someone ought to relay that sentiment to the average CEO, whose salaries over the past couple decades have skyrocketed far beyond any minimum wage hikes ever enacted. Those salaries and benefits being totally unrelated to the CEO's performance or the performance of the company as well.

Paying people as little as possible might be good bottom line sense, but when you pay staff that work full-time and do the job expected of them such a pitiful wage that they have to get public assistance to survive, that's where you lose me. I object to subsidizing the payroll of McDonald's, Wal-Mart or any other company with my tax dollars.

Conversely, if you artificailly jack up the price of labor the cost of goods and services will rise accordingly. Those employed who are making just below the minimum suffer as their increased pay is unlikely to meet the rising costs, those just above the minimum suffer enven more as they get nothing extra, but pay more for those same goods and services.

The only way raising the minimum wage would work, would be if you engaged in government sponsored price fixing along with it. In effect trying to force bussiness to operate on a slimer protit margin by disallowin gthem to raise prices to reflect the new cost oflabor. Even if you did that, bussinesses would probably lay off workers rather than take the hit on their profits. I know I would.

People who favor hiking the minimum operate on the assumption people who own these bussinesses want or should be forced to takeless profits for the greater good. If your working assumptions about human beings isn't so idealistic, then it makes no sense. I don't agree with no control over what a job pays, bussiness is too likely to abuse that. In the same breath, jacking up the minimum wage is unlikely to result in anything good either. It just isn't how the market works.

 

[amicus]

Thank you, Colly...

There seems no way to bridge the chasm between business and labor.

Because I was a smart assed college grad, my business oriented brother challenged me to run a small business, a Pizza parlour and see if it could survive.

It was the most difficult thing I think I have ever done.

Okay...there is a 'nut' as we called it; the rent of the building, X dollars a month, the utilities, gas, water, electric, telephone, X dollars a month.

Before it ever opened, there were many thousands of dollars expended for furnishings, licenses, permits, health inspections, business license, liquour license, parking standards, lighting standards, security standards, et cetera...

Then another outlay for the ingredients to even make a pizza; crusts, sauces, toppings, boxes and the distributors do not take credit, it is cash up front.

A person going into business ponies up several thousand dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars before the doors even open.

And then you need people to work for you, employees.

Put yourself in the place of a new business person, hanging a 'help wanted' sign out.

I won't relate to you what I discovered as I am sure you can imagine.

Calculate into your figures that approximately 80% of your costs as a small business person, is employee wages, salaries and benefits.

And all you wanna do is sell a goddamned Pizza.

So you try to put together a formula of how you can balance the costs of doing business with the profits of doing business.

After a year of 16 hours days, and complications you could not conceive of, you find you did a quarter million dollars of business, employed several dozen people, paid 27% in taxes and your net income was less than minimum wage.

Go figure.

Just so it is not lost in translation(a movie) it is the same with giant corporations, trying to make a living profit for the investors and the owners, government intervention makes it nearly impossible for business to survive.

There must be a change in direction.


amicus...(yeah, I know, a weak and incomplete case, but if you get my drift....)

 

[davidwatts]

Conversely, if you artificailly jack up the price of labor the cost of goods and services will rise accordingly. Those employed who are making just below the minimum suffer as their increased pay is unlikely to meet the rising costs, those just above the minimum suffer enven more as they get nothing extra, but pay more for those same goods and services.

The only way raising the minimum wage would work, would be if you engaged in government sponsored price fixing along with it. In effect trying to force bussiness to operate on a slimer protit margin by disallowin gthem to raise prices to reflect the new cost oflabor. Even if you did that, bussinesses would probably lay off workers rather than take the hit on their profits. I know I would.

People who favor hiking the minimum operate on the assumption people who own these bussinesses want or should be forced to takeless profits for the greater good. If your working assumptions about human beings isn't so idealistic, then it makes no sense. I don't agree with no control over what a job pays, bussiness is too likely to abuse that. In the same breath, jacking up the minimum wage is unlikely to result in anything good either. It just isn't how the market works.

No one would dispute that business deserves to make a fair profit; people that take the financial risk to form a company should be rewarded, and handsomely at that. That is the American way, and it has worked quite well so far. The chasm that has formed between the CEO level and the average worker is disturbing, especially given the sorry performance levels of some of these companies that hand out golden parachutes to these incompetents.

Businesses that value their employees contributions to the company would have the rest of their payroll reflect any increase in the minimum wage. Depending on the company and the product produced, the cost of labor in the total cost of doing business varies greatly. If you give all employees a 5% raise, that doesn't mean your prices go up 5%, although it's been done as an excuse.

I recall reading at one time that if McDonald's gave all their help a dollar an hour raise, a penny increase in the price of a hamburger would more than cover the cost. Given the contempt people seem to have for a penny these days, that would seem to be no great hardship. There is no reason why the success of a company cannot be shared in some small way by the people who are responsible for same. There is also no reason for management and workers to always be adversarial, because there is plenty for everybody when a company thrives.

Gotta go to work now.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

No one would dispute that business deserves to make a fair profit; people that take the financial risk to form a company should be rewarded, and handsomely at that. That is the American way, and it has worked quite well so far. The chasm that has formed between the CEO level and the average worker is disturbing, especially given the sorry performance levels of some of these companies that hand out golden parachutes to these incompetents.

Businesses that value their employees contributions to the company would have the rest of their payroll reflect any increase in the minimum wage. Depending on the company and the product produced, the cost of labor in the total cost of doing business varies greatly. If you give all employees a 5% raise, that doesn't mean your prices go up 5%, although it's been done as an excuse.

I recall reading at one time that if McDonald's gave all their help a dollar an hour raise, a penny increase in the price of a hamburger would more than cover the cost. Given the contempt people seem to have for a penny these days, that would seem to be no great hardship. There is no reason why the success of a company cannot be shared in some small way by the people who are responsible for same. There is also no reason for management and workers to always be adversarial, because there is plenty for everybody when a company thrives.

Gotta go to work now.

In McDonalds, you are talking about a multi-national corporation. Most people work for smaller bussiness andmost bussiness concerns are local or at best regional or locally owned franchises.

McDonalds is also the tail end user. They could Jack their prices and the extra becomes profit (assuming they don't sell fewer as thier burgers are now more expensive than the wendy's next door). With a minimum wage increase, however, that changes drastically. Their transport costs more, the actual beef costs more, the elctricity, paper products, etc. etc. etc. all go up as the people who provide those things raise prices. By the time it gets to MckyD's and is sold as a hamburger, the price is higher by a factor and that factor will probly be reflecte as a burger that costs more, but the workers aren't seeing benefits from that.

The more expensive burger pays for Mcdonald's costs to cover everything being more expensive AND a raise for workers. The workers, are not just paying more for a burger either, they are paying more for eveything they use day to day,week to week and month to month.

If you raise payroll, you raise end unit price to cover it. So everyone who buys your product is paying for that raise in payroll, including all the people who "benefited" from a pay raise. And they are doing so on every product they buy.

the equation is pretty simple. If you raise the cost of unskilled labor across the boards, every producer who employs unskilled labor will rasie prices. If you are making minimum wage, the odds are good you are buying products produced by unskilled labor.

The goal of everyone being able to earn a living wage is good, but if you are jacking up the cost of living as you increase their wage, you aren't really addressing the problem unless you are sure the projected wage increase is more than the attenmdant higher COL.

 

[davidwatts]

I'm not looking to make any drastic minimum wage increases, merely trying to state the case that there needs to be something there for people to start at and be able to exist. It should also be a modest enough rate that people have the desire to move onward and upward and not be content with where they are.

Along with that comes the responsibility for people to show up for work, be there on time and do the job to the best of their abilities. Alas, that's a whole new topic there.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not looking to make any drastic minimum wage increases, merely trying to state the case that there needs to be something there for people to start at and be able to exist. It should also be a modest enough rate that people have the desire to move onward and upward and not be content with where they are.

Along with that comes the responsibility for people to show up for work, be there on time and do the job to the best of their abilities. Alas, that's a whole new topic there.

I think most people will agree there is a legitimate need for a state set minimum. I don't even disagree that occasionally it might need to be adjusted upwards as the cost of living goes up.

I'm just saying jacking up the minimum is no panacea. The consequences of doing so very often will outstrip the percieved benefits.

 

[rgraham666]

How interesting. There was a good column in my morning's paper about this.

Note: Don Drummond is senior vice-president and chief economist and Gillian Manning is an economist at TD Bank Financial Group.

 

[Pure]

Ha!

Ami said, The other side [Republicans] rests on an understanding of the free market place

Jeez, that caused a spew. It's pretty well known that THIS group of Republicans bypass the 'free market' whenever possible, as in the award of 'no bid' contracts in Iraq. And, oddly, it appears Halliburton is in for a good share of disaster relief funds. Also corruption of the market is intrinsic to present business government relations: the former head of FEMA, before the late Mr. Brown, Mr. Allbaugh, is now doing consulting for private businesses in the field.

Ami, I know you love the wonderland of your novels, where all your beliefs hold, but sometime, dropping by the real world, analyse for us the major oil companies' behavior in relation to 'free market.' (I assume you will avoid the use of any commie terms such as 'cartel', 'oligopoly,' 'restraint of trade' and so on.)

OR, if you want pizza related examples, comment on the 'free market' approach of 'Pizza pizza' (very large chain of franchisees) which has garnered a number of law suits. For instance, the 'head office' *requires* that the 'independent franchisee' buy basic ingredients from Pizza Pizza, and not 'shop' for the lowest price, elsewhere.