- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,375
- Reaction score
- 10,650
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
"Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""your point of interest in not part of the founders.
the founders are all dead by then
These are facts, read'em and weep:I understand your need to misinterpret statistics and try to disprove the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is not a conservative or liberal economic belief; it's a fact.
If sub-minimal wages increased youth employment, it should work across racial lines, but since 1972 it has not decreased white youth unemployment.
Notice that the increases in unemployment for black youths correlates with recessions. Also notice that Black youth unemployment is at the same level now as in 1972.
"Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""
Oh? So I can't ask question now? Why? Because you cannot answer them right? Seriously. Give it the old college try and tell me what in the hell you expect an employer to do when you raise the cost of paying his labor force?
As for the link. How does that admit to "fixing the stats?" Does that mean that everyone with an agenda changes the stats to suit their needs? Or do you just not have evidence and data to fend off the studies and claims, so instead you just write them off as "right wing propaganda" because it doesn't support what you think it should?
Another non-sequitur! Dred Scott was not based on "popularity"...and until 1846, slave states either outnumbered or were equal to the number of free states.really..... WONDER why did most of the states wanted to abolish slavery.
Sure, I can argue that the Constitution talked the talk of "all men are created equal", but the facts still are that the founders were slave holders, that they did not hold that Blacks (or Women or non-property holding White males) were equal and that is what was found in Dred Scott.wonder why Fredrick Douglas thought the constitution a great document.
In fact, Douglass argued, the U.S. Constitution was both the founding generation's greatest achievement and the abolitionists' greatest weapon.
'A Glorious Liberty Document' - Reason.com
another non-sequitur! Dred scott was not based on "popularity"...and until 1846, slave states either outnumbered or were equal to the number of free states.
Sure, i can argue that the constitution talked the talk of "all men are created equal", but the facts still are that the founders were slave holders, that they did not hold that blacks (or women or non-property holding white males) were equal and that is what was found in dred scott.
I just do not understand why you keep ignoring these very basic facts.
I do understand why though you have completely dropped the min wage discussion.
lol..because i have stated my case, would it bare repeating.
lol..
(that has never stopped you before, you seem to love to repeat the same error filled rhetoric over and over...)
Wrong. Listen again. He said the young people were black and he wanted to give a lower wage to blacks so they would have a better shot at jobs.
False.its only an error to you,.
Well, that is a real deeeeeeeerrrrrr statement, this is a debate forum, not a dating site.As you have demonstration that everyone who oppress your view is wrong.....not just me.
False.
Well, that is a real deeeeeeeerrrrrr statement, this is a debate forum, not a dating site.
Another deeeeeeerrrrrrrr moment, you profess your views are correct too.hey, i just stating what i see from you........you profess you are right.......ok...your free to feel that way.
Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.
One of Congress's goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics." And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with "cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
emphasis on the "little"A little info:
Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.
One of Congress's goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics." And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with "cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
by your own post we see that most WHITE construction workers are not unionizedToday just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, ...
notably, davis-bacon was passed in the depression [1932]... however, the law has the effect of freezing them [black construction workers] out of jobs.
yes it does. if tuse it predated iscriminatiany inkling of racial employment duse it predated i am paying my construction workers $20 per hour and no benefits on civilian projects, and the "prevailing"/union rate is $25 per hour with medical and vacation benefits, how would that contractor be able to bring in a federal project at civilian work rates? so, you finally got something right in your postIt also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, ...
unfortunately, you got this wrong. VERY wrong... since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
This is what I call a "reveal". This is a moment when the left wants something so badly to be true, that they are able to convince themselves that it is, even when it is so obviously not. Now, the left does this all the time, but it is rare to get something like this, where they cannot throw misleading charts and statistics at you for cover. You have achieved 1984, 2+2=5.
Neocons: Working hard to bring back slavery, get Jesus put on the money and in the schools, and force women to have the babies of their rapists. Next up: stone age revisited.
Lol considering Republicans are responcible for 70% of the national debt yeah it was Dems spending all the money under Regan, Bush1 and Bush2. Please stop with the conservative anti everything talking points. Americans have caught on to the whole lets drape oursleves in the flag and call ourselves patriots and do the direct opposite! That is why you guys cant find anyone decent enough to run. They get laughed at.
You are just diggin' that hole deeper and deeper. I mean, do you really think that got you any credibility back?
Giving you a piece of your own medicine was definitely worth it. Only a very simple minded person sees the whole world as either "for his view of things" or "some sort of evil liberal". Now everyone got to look at my response and my quote of your first comment; and can see just how infantile your assertion was. But just to keep my responses on a more adult level, I will throw you in my ignore bin and make believe you don't exist so I don't get enticed to lower myself to your level. Feel free to get in the last word though even if I won't see it - others might enjoy it. Take care - stay in school, BTW.
If sub-minimal wages increased youth employment, it should work across racial lines, but since 1972 it has not decreased white youth unemployment.
Notice that the increases in unemployment for black youths correlates with recessions. Also notice that Black youth unemployment is at the same level now as in 1972.
Can a current business owner please respond to this.
If the employees pay is raised to $15.00 per hour, how much more does the business have to pay out in payroll taxes and other taxes for that employee at that level.
Thanks in advance.
it varies by benefits provided, but as a general rule of thumb, for a basic employee, each $1 paid to the employee will cost the employer about $1.30
Thanks Bubba
So the $15.00 per hour will acutally be $19.50. All that has to be added to the cost of the product.
Who is going to go for that?
One could make this argument against any wage increase ever. Of course that makes business have to spend more on wages. That's the point.
And no, not all of it has to go into product cost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?