- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,361
- Reaction score
- 422
- Location
- West Coast USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I would say my stance reflects a nicely blended mixture of liberal, progressive, libertarian, green, and socialist philosophies.
What is your political leaning and what are your stances on the issues most important to you?
Political leaning - Libertarian.
Political affiliation - None.
Small central government/states rights.
Pro-life.
Pro-second amendment.
Anti-welfare.
Anti-affirmative action.
Minimal government regulation of private business.
Anti-minimum wage.
Anti-subsidy.
Accepts globalization but affirms the importance of national sovereignty.
Non-interventionist foreign policy.
Free-trade.
Decriminalize and regulate drugs.
Anti-death penalty.
Balanced budgets.
Strict separation of Church and State.But, lets not get carried away with this..
Strong, yet defensive military posture.
Effective and frequent diplomacy.
I agree. You set the standards of working 40 hours each week, passing random drug tests, and keeping a clean criminal record.
You proscribe a path to success by helping with the candidate's job search and mandating that a living wage be paid to them for their full-time work.
If they choose not to, you kick them out of the program. I favor a three strikes rule. One offense means you're out of the program for three months minimum. The second offense will keep you out for an additional six months. After the third offense, you're permanently barred from government assistance.
Which I agree with entirely, but some people don't have the skills to get decent paying, full-time work and therefore, you need to require that they get job training or education so they are better qualified for work that will pay the bills.
So that Walmart Greeter or burger-flipper at McDonalds deserves the same amount of pay as someone who has marketable skills and experience? I don't think so.
I agree. But what do you propose they do while they're getting education? They're going to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. And while they're there, if they don't get paid enough money to live, they're going to end up taking the rest from the government anyways.
A living wage is hardly living in the lap of luxury. Someone with those marketable skills should be able to make substantially more than someone who requires government assistance.
This is continued anti-Americanism. As shown by an international comparison, the US has a much greater proportion of the low paid. Using Cephus's argument, that would mean that the typical American is more irresponsible than the typical European. That is of course nonsense. It is not possible to refer to supply side 'limitation' to understand the US's over-reliance on low payHowever, there are people out there trying to raise families on minimum-wage jobs and I really don't feel all that sorry for them. They have been irresponsible in their lives and now they want to get paid more for it? Heck no.
This is continued anti-Americanism.
As shown by an international comparison, the US has a much greater proportion of the low paid.
Using Cephus's argument, that would mean that the typical American is more irresponsible than the typical European.
That is of course nonsense. It is not possible to refer to supply side 'limitation' to understand the US's over-reliance on low pay
Given the US's greater low pay tendency, the supply-side "its their fault" argument must- by definition- suggest that the American is more likely to be feckless than the non-American.How? How is a position against increasing the minimum wage based on individual responsibility and individual rights "anti-American?"
Those comparisons destroy his argument. It does not surprise me that I have to refer to them.Cephus made no comparison against the international standards.
The standard low pay measure is two-thirds of median wage. You might want to suggest that relative measure hides overall higher wage rates. However, you'd be on a losing wicket. The low waged in the US are paid less than their European counterparts.The typical American doesn't work @ minimum wage, do you have any idea what the median income is here in America?
Any actual analysis of the US labour market demonstrates that is the case. Only the other neo-liberal countries can compete with the proportion of the workforce paid low wagesWho said there was an over-reliance on low pay, your strawman is what is nonsense.
Given the US's greater low pay tendency, the supply-side "its their fault" argument must- by definition- suggest that the American is more likely to be feckless than the non-American.
Those comparisons destroy his argument. It does not surprise me that I have to refer to them.
The standard low pay measure is two-thirds of median wage. You might want to suggest that relative measure hides overall higher wage rates. However, you'd be on a losing wicket. The low waged in the US are paid less than their European counterparts.
Any actual analysis of the US labour market demonstrates that is the case. Only the other neo-liberal countries can compete with the proportion of the workforce paid low wages
Its not difficult, so you have no excuse here. The US has a relatively large proportion of low wage labour. Using the supply-side nonsense, that would suggest that the American citizen is- on average- more likely to be feckless. That is a proper sneer at your fellow citizen!No, its a judgment on those individuals, not by comparison to other countries, but by comparison to the productive in his own country.
I'm referring to the available evidence and therefore calling it what it is: an anti-American attitude. He may not know it is anti-American, but that merely reflects his failure to appreciate the nature of the low wage problem in the US.What you're doing is building an irrelevant straw man for his position. No one said anything about America, his position is against the irresponsible.
The minimum wage is an ineffective poverty alleviation policy. However, higher rates are required to reduce inefficient underpayment. This demonstrates the absurdity of the "its the individual's fault" prattle.Cephus's argument is simply his being opposed to raising the minimum wage as a solution.
He hasn't entertained any valid labour economics. He has been reliant on the standard "its the individual's fault" nonsense. Given the US's greater low wage problem, it is just logical to conclude that he thinks more Americans are worthless compared to the likes of the Western European.He is claiming that their folly is their fault, rather than an baseless and nonsequitur accusation of "un-Americanism", why don't you debate his actual claim.
Orthodox labour theory predicts underpayment. That is a market failure. The minimum wage, ironically, is therefore a policy designed to eliminate market failure. However, I'd go further than that and argue that high minimum wages are a crucial part of eliminating the low skill equilibrium that typically inflict neo-liberal countries. The profit per worker from low wage labour has to be reduced to ensure that resources (both labour and capital) shift towards high wage/high productivity jobs (often requiring more intensive upskilling). Its about the manipulation of labour demand.how can you justify from an economic standpoint increasing the minimum wage for people foolish enough to expect a living wage from such labor?
Be more precise! You forgot that you have no labour economic counterattack. Libertarianism is such a limitation for these mattersNevermind, I forgot that I was talking to a brick wall.
Southern Belle said:I believe in working hard and earning money, I've begged my parents to let me get a job, but realistically it would be VERY complicated and I'd just lose the job if I get real sick again.
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?