Forced Minimum Wage: Dude, where’s my summer job? Edition.

Tagged:

Summer is quickly approaching and finals are being taken in High Schools and Colleges across the country and along with most every parent, a lot of teenagers and young adults are looking forward to getting summer jobs. Problem is, thanks to a bunch of misguided and economically impaired politicians the phrase “Dude, where’s my summer job?” will be on the mouths of most this summer.

I wish I could take credit for the title: “Dude, where’s my summer job?” but that honor goes to Kristen Lopez Eastlick of the Examiner.com LA edition who’s piece today echo’s and exemplifies the reason why so many of us on the right (yours truly included) fought so hard against this wage hike, to no avail.

Touted as a victory by this Do-Nothing Democrat controlled congress they’re once again proven wrong by the law of unintended consequences. My quibble with citing this law is that these CongressCritters™ should have known better — we all did!

This year, it’s harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as “the worst in post-World War II history” for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be “even worse.”

-Snip-

According to economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young black adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent. In the past 11 months alone, the United States’ minimum wage has increased by more than twice that amount.

So it should be no surprise to see teen jobs disappearing or to hear bleak testimony from employers across the country that make these hiring decisions.

The amount of research and data by respected organizations showing that mandatory minimum wages and their arbitrary nature actually causes more job loss and does more harm to the intended beneficiary is staggering. Kristen sites some in her article:

There’s no end to the economic data that confirm these common-sense observations. Research from the University of Georgia, the University of Connecticut and Cornell University indicates that increasing the minimum wage causes four times more job loss for employees without a high school diploma than it does for the general population.

Furthermore, minimum wage hikes don’t effectively target the people who are typically portrayed as the key beneficiaries — low-income adults raising kids. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, just 14 percent of those who benefited from the most recent federal minimum wage hike are sole earners in families with children.

This summer, with our economy reeling from high energy prices and already up-ticking unemployment numbers coupled with last years mandatory minimum wage hike, the prospects for summer jobs by teens, young adults and minorities is slim to say the least. It’s a shame that those who are elected to congress to help fix problems are so singularly focused on gaining power and passing symbolic legislation that does more harm than good… glossed over the facts and consequences in order to score some cheep points.

I suppose their answer would be just wait until the day we can tell those kids…. Hey, no worries — stay home this summer and veg the federal government has so heavily taxed hard working Americans that all of your expenses (living, medical, social) are covered by our new nanny state!!!

We’re closer to that now than we’ve ever been… think about it!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jaded's picture

must do something and screwing up the economy seems the the perfect thing to do!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Steve Foley's picture

...it's become SPORT!

Knight_of_the_Mind's picture

Boo-Yeah!

Steve Foley's picture

…back when we were all railing against this nonsense I couldn’t, for the life of me, figure out why so many CongressCritters™ were ignoring the overwhelming facts. I mean we knew it was a symbolic way to score a victory but I really thought there would be Democrats who would be smart enough or at least intellectually curious enough to actually look at the facts!!! Alas, I was sorely mistaken.

Joliphant's picture

Think about it. Work teaches kids responsibility, standing on their own two feet and how to make their way in the world. If they spend the summer mooching on mom and pop they are ever more primed to vote democratic. Why they learn the system is rigged against them, that some have it and they can't get it, and if they can't someone will take care of them anyway.
_______________________________
Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

DocJ's picture

I mean, why not? After all, the same MSM that pushed for this job-killing MinWage increase, and the same Democrats who passed it, and the same now-jobless GenSlackers will do just that - I just want to be first!

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Steve Foley's picture

Best to stay ahead of the pack.

AEKowalski's picture

It would be wonderful to be able to hire some high school students for the summer to do work here at our company. The main problem is that Massachusetts' business climate is so bad that it is the businesses who get targeted first. The minimum wage increase is just another thing that is stopping me from being able to give people a good summer job. First on the list, though, has to go to the fact that healthcare is an exorbitant, unavoidable cost for a small business here, and secondly the fact that when economic times are bad, the system is set up in such a way that in Massachusetts it is the business owners who get hit first, and get hit hardest.

National Grid is seeing large numbers of defaults on electricity bill payments in this state and elsewhere in the Northeast. And MassHealth is not signing up people to become a part of the paying pool at anywhere near the rate needed. The only thing the legislators do is sock the small business owners, because they're the only ones who can legally be hammered.

AEKowalski's picture

From my perspective the single best thing Massachusetts could do is grant small business startups an exemption from MassHealth under the law. How can you afford to pay $1,800 a month in health insurance when you cannot make $1,800 a month in revenue to cover it?

The alternative is not complying with the law and getting taken to court by the State, so it's the world's worst Catch-22. And small business owners are the ones between the jaws of the vice.

Steve Foley's picture

were foreseen consequences that people ignored in order to score points and hurl Mass needlessly toward nanny state socialism.

AEKowalski's picture

You can go ahead and recognize that people in Massachusetts pay the 7th highest electricity rates in the country ... to a foreign-owned company that works hand in glove with the Governor of this state in his determination never to build another power plant in the Commonwealth, no matter how bad things get here.

At some point, there is no more blood to be taken from the stone, and that is why I've had to rely on my friends here at TMR for an advertising mention -- to help me start a profitable, environmentally conscious, value-added business that Massachusetts needs desparately.

AEKowalski's picture

Is that in the end, this is Massachusetts, the home of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is widely recognized -- head and shoulders -- as one of the handful of premiere technological and engineering universities in the hemisphere, if not the world.

And yet, with all of that per-capita brainpower, we cannot bring ourselves to find a practical answer to our energy problems and our healthcare costs while supporting the businesses this state needs.

Something is seriously wrong with a state that educates the most brilliant technologists on the planet and cannot build any new power plants.

Steve Foley's picture

Quote:
The amount of research and data by respected organizations showing that mandatory minimum wages and their arbitrary nature actually causes more job loss and does more harm to the intended beneficiary is staggering.

Well I can agree that the arbitrary nature is a problem. Which is why we should simply have the minimum wage set to x amount with an automatic adjustment for inflation. Handle it once and then leave it alone.

Quote:
stay home this summer and veg the federal government has so heavily taxed hard working Americans that all of your expenses (living, medical, social) are covered by our new nanny state!!!

We’re closer to that now than we’ve ever been… think about it!

Can't say it bothers me overly much, but you probably knew that if you read my Hypothetical Economic System blog on swordscrossed:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/644

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

David Hinz's picture

allow the free market to decide wages. Keep the government OUT of the business of setting wages for business.

I realize this defies the creeping Socialism that the US has become, but what the heck...it's worth a try.

We've been there. Didn't like what it entailed, so we moved on. A majority don't have any interest in going back. That's the practical answer.

The philosophical answer is that the free market is too amoral and subject to abuse to be allowed to control anything of real importance.

Take your pick between them. :)

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

Yep - that's where I always look to try to find "moral" policies taking place.

Here's a thought - it's been almost 70-years since the "amoral" market had the opportunity to control the price of labor. What do you say? Can you be a sport and give the market a chance once every quarter-century or so?

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Quote:
Yep - that's where I always look to try to find "moral" policies taking place.

A great deal of our law revolves around morality. Virtually all criminal law is an attempt to enforce a socially universal moral code. Now you and I probably agree on the efficacy of this (although it leads us to different conclusions) but it's not like government pushing morality is a strange or unusual thing.

Quote:
Here's a thought - it's been almost 70-years since the "amoral" market had the opportunity to control the price of labor. What do you say? Can you be a sport and give the market a chance once every quarter-century or so?

I'm disinclined to do so. But more importantly, the american people in general don't seem interested.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

A great deal of our law revolves around morality.

Ah, so the minimum wage law is just a logical extension of assault and battery law? Well, that's certainly an interesting theoretical argument - and actually sheds some light on how the lifestyle nazis on your side of the aisle think it's A-OK for a person to stick their 4th point of contact into anything that moves but Heaven Forbid! they have a smoke, or a trans-fat laden jelly donut, afterward.

Quite enlightening, really.

But more importantly, the american (sic) people in general don't seem interested.

Really? Have you asked them?

Continuing on your recent comment in an attempt to coalesce the thread a bit...

The difference is that when the government is a liberal democracy there are controls that allow the people to reign it in and curb the worst excesses.

Erm, there are just as many - if not more - mechanisms existing in the market to accomplish the same thing. Oh and by the way, we don't live in a liberal democracy - but I know you already knew that.

I'm perfectly capable of learning from history that occured (sic) before my birth.

Swell - but that wasn't the point you were making. Your original point was made as if you were personally there and you personally witnessed said nightmare. I, for one, am skeptical that it was nearly as bad as portrayed in the New Deal era media. And I am even more skeptical that, in this era of collective bargaining and the internet, such horrendous labor practices would be returning in any case.

In other words, it isn't the 1930's anymore.

By your argument we might as well give English colonial rule another shot since nobody living today can say what it was actually like.

Actually, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to find people living elsewhere who can tell us for certain just how awful was colonial rule - though looking at the basket-case that, for example, Africa has become since the colonial "shackles" were thrown off I'm not at all certain some modern examples are not dis-positive of your assertion.

But no - that's not what I was getting at. I was commenting more narrowly on your use of second person to testify to events you could not have witnessed firsthand.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Quote:
Quite enlightening, really.

Sweet.

Quote:
Really? Have you asked them?

Me personally? No. But polling is certainly done, and of course elections and referendums can be considered a form of "asking." Counter question- How many times has a minimum wage increase failed to pass? How many times has a minimum wage decrease passed? Have there been any moves to eliminate the minimum wage that have gotten any traction?

I think those questions pretty starkly indicate what the american people support. But like i said we can look at opinion polls if you prefer.

Quote:
Your original point was made as if you were personally there and you personally witnessed said nightmare. I, for one, am skeptical that it was nearly as bad as portrayed in the New Deal era media. And I am even more skeptical that, in this era of collective bargaining and the internet, such horrendous labor practices would be returning in any case.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but I see your point. I see plenty of evidence that companies are every bit as rapacious now as they were then (Union Carbide, WR Grace, Enron, and so forth), they just are policed a lot more. Hence I'm not all that willing to lay off the cops who police them or loosen the laws by which they are policed.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

But polling is certainly done, and of course elections and referendums can be considered a form of "asking." ... But like i said we can look at opinion polls if you prefer.

Ah, polling. That precise science by which we can know beyond any doubt precisely what "The American People" think on any subject. Swell. As for elections, unless you're talking about the few states where citizens petition an issue directly then you ain't "asking" anything about any issue in particular there.

I see plenty of evidence that companies are every bit as rapacious now as they were then

And people made sport of Joe McCarthy for seeing a Commie around every corner, eh? My, how do you manage to sleep at night?

Hence I'm not all that willing to lay off the cops who police them...

Careful with all that straw, man - it's been pretty dry around here.

... or loosen the laws by which they are policed

Oh, Heaven's no!! There must be more laws. One on top of another, ever layering further and further barriers to anything remoteley resembling creativity and enterprise.

Freedom be damned, of course - which is the supreme irony of this discussion if you really think about it.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

You seem to be arguing that we have no way of knowing, even generally, the position of the majority. I find that kind of odd, personally.

Polling is not be flawless, certainly, but it is very capable of giving a general idea when conducted well. Similarly while elections may or may not be directly on the issue they *do* give a general sense of priorities, especially when the results of many votes on the same issue occur so a patter can be established.

Are you really going to argue that the majority doesn't support minimum wage hikes?

Quote:
Oh, Heaven's no!! There must be more laws. One on top of another, ever layering further and further barriers to anything remoteley resembling creativity and enterprise.

Freedom be damned, of course - which is the supreme irony of this discussion if you really think about it.

Are you really willing to take this position to its logical conclusion, DocJ? Because you know what that is, don't you? It's anarchism. And if you want to go that route then we might have a very interesting discussion.

My guess though is that this isn't quite the principled stance you are pretending, that you are in fact just fine with freedom limiting laws so long as it's the laws you like (and the freedoms you don't). That's fine, just be upfront about it. And if I'm wrong then by all means let's discuss real freedom, and all that entails.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

You seem to be arguing that we have no way of knowing, even generally, the position of the majority.

I am arguing, precisely, no such thing. You, on the other hand, are arguing that the position of "The American People" - as if that were a monolithic block of like-minded folk - is and can be known definatively. I dissent, but we're obviously going to agree to disagree to this point so I'll skip ahead a bit...

Are you really willing to take this position to its logical conclusion, DocJ? Because you know what that is, don't you? It's anarchism.

No, it's not. The logical conclusion of this position, from my mind, is the concept of Ordered Liberty. And yes, as a matter of fact I'm rather fond of Burke.

My guess though is that this isn't quite the principled stance you are pretending, that you are in fact just fine with freedom limiting laws so long as it's the laws you like (and the freedoms you don't).

You guess poorly. But just to cut to the chase I'll clue you in to this much - I believe states have a great deal of flexibility to enact a whole host of laws of their chosing on a broad array of subjects. The Feds? Not so much.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

They are merely points on a continuum, hence picking one as okay to enact laws and the other as not okay strikes me as needlessly arbitrary. Why is the state special? Why not reserve such power to the country, the municipality, the city, or the individual?

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
that left the rights with the states. It is the courts and federal legislators that have ignored this framework.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

My point is that federalism has no deep meaning, it was an arbitrary arrangement. Which goes a long ways towards explaining why both parties treat it as a political football; insisting it must be respected in issues they want to be able to fight at the local level, while simultaneously demanding it be ignored on issues they think they can win on the national level.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
The contributors to this site are very much conservatives and federalists.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

So do you really support Federalism, even when it is inconvenient for you? If so then, while it remains an arbitrary position (not really a criticism- we all take arbitrary positions), at least you are applying consistently, which I can respect.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
Seriously, I'm really not sure how you get that impression from this site that we would find the reintroduction of our republic as a federalism as inconvenient.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

How can federalism be inconvenient? Well if you are say a socon and you argue for a repeal of Roe on a basis of state's rights then that works with federalism, but if you argue for a HLA then that's fundamentally counter to federalism.

I don't have any idea if you personally are socially conservative, simpsons, nor if you are whether you want abortion to be a states right issue or not. Just an example.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
You were ordered such below. Further ignoring of the order will result in banning.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
DocJ's picture

If you've not read this, read it now.

Don't test me on this.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

DocJ's picture

Take two of this and call me in the morning.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

DocJ's picture

The philosophical answer is that the free market is too amoral and subject to abuse to be allowed to control anything of real importance.

This is parody, right? I mean, the market is too amoral and subject to abuse (by whom?) to be "allowed" (love the choice of words here by the way) to control anything important but government is neither too amoral nor subject to abuse and therefore should be entrusted with, well, everything I suppose?

Seriously dude, that's guffaw-worthy.

And BTW Methuselah, unless you were voting age in 1938 when the federal minimum wage was adopted then "we" didn't like what anything entailed and moved on from anything. "We" have precisely no first-hand idea what such a wage structure would be like to live with, aye?

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Quote:
I mean, the market is too amoral and subject to abuse (by whom?) to be "allowed" (love the choice of words here by the way) to control anything important but government is neither too amoral nor subject to abuse and therefore should be entrusted with, well, everything I suppose?

Government certainly can be every bit as terrible as private industry. The difference is that when the government is a liberal democracy there are controls that allow the people to reign it in and curb the worst excesses.

Quote:
Seriously dude, that's guffaw-worthy.

glad to brighten up your day. :)

Quote:
And BTW Methuselah, unless you were voting age in 1938 when the federal minimum wage was adopted then "we" didn't like what anything entailed and moved on from anything. "We" have precisely no first-hand idea what such a wage structure would be like to live with, aye?

I'm perfectly capable of learning from history that occured before my birth. I have no more desire to remove the minimum wage than I do to repeal antitrust laws or do away with the FDA. By your argument we might as well give English colonial rule another shot since nobody living today can say what it was actually like.

But I'm sure you really don't mean anything of the sort.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

David Hinz's picture

Socialism has been tried over and over, all over the world. Each time it has failed.

The USSR collapsed under the weight of its own failures.

China could not feed its peope until it turned to free market answers.

Even today, in Socialist Europe, people are realizing its failure, and are turning to Conservative answers.

The elites in this country are SURE that the others just did it wrong -- they can make it work, They KNOW that government is the answer, WE know it is the problem.

Hence every country on the planet uses some blend of the two. Some capitalism helps to spur innovation. Some socialism helps to keep the system stable by limiting terrible disparities between classes. The only question then is how much of each. You think we need a lot more capitalism. I think we need a lot less.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

David Hinz's picture

ah yes, the Robin Hood Syndrome. You want to take from the rich and redistribute it to the poor -- to achieve economic parity. You realize of course that the "rich" that Robby stole from was the government taxman, right?

Better, you think that the government pick winners and losers in the sweepstakes of life, rather than allowing people to do it for themselves.

The problem with liberals is that they always want to hand out fish. Conservatives want to teach how to use fishing poles. The "majority" will always opt for handouts -- especially when the "majority" is receiving the fish. It takes work to catch the fish.

DocJ's picture

I'm out of this thread for a while - got kids to put to bed.

Have fun!

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

My kids are coming at the end of this week. I'm looking forawrd to that reading before bed time stuff again. :)

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Quote:
You want to take from the rich and redistribute it to the poor -- to achieve economic parity.

Not exactly. Economic parity isn't going to happen realistically. There is a question of just how tall and thin we let the pyramid grow. That is to say right now we have an income distribution that is spectacularly unbalanced. So you have a choice- you either leave things alone, maybe even creating policies that promote the inequality, in which case the system will crash, or you work to correct the inequality. Not eliminating but reducing the difference between the lowest and the highest.

Conveniently a way to do that is through social welfare programs which also means that you have the moral good of not letting your fellow citizens starve or go homeless or uneducated or sick, etc. unnecessarily.

Two birds with one stone.

Quote:
Better, you think that the government pick winners and losers in the sweepstakes of life, rather than allowing people to do it for themselves.

I don't find either particularly attractive, but yeah if I have to pick one I'll go for option A since the government can be reformed, whereas leaving it to chance doesn't allow for any learning or adapting.

Quote:
The problem with liberals is that they always want to hand out fish. Conservatives want to teach how to use fishing poles.

Well if I was feeling cruel I'd say the conservatives want to sell fishing poles (with the inevitable question "what about those who can't afford one?").

Quote:
It takes work to catch the fish.

It also takes a pole and some bait, which is a pretty sweet deal for the guy who sells both. Especially when he gets to decide who eats and who starves. If someone's going to have that power I'd like it to be someone covered by the Freedom of Information Act, myself.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture

Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

I fully expect them to be corrupt. Just like I fully expect CEOs to be corrupt. The difference, as I mentioned before, is that mechanisms exist to deal with corrupt politicians (at least in liberal democracies). If the president is corrupt we can impeach him. If the CEO of Walmart is corrupt there's essentially nothing we can do (unless the government will step in).

It's about accountability. The stronger and more direct the chain of accountability the more power they can tolerably wield. Our government is directly accountable to us. Not so private industry.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
Nothing you can do, except:

-Not buy Walmart.

-Call for a boycott of Walmart because of XYZ corruption.

If you own Walmart stock, vote out the board members that support said CEO

-etc etc etc.

You assume that you are powerless therefor you are.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Nothing. Barring the unlikely proposition that I am fantastically wealthy any money I might spend at walmart is invisible. It wouldn't even come close to showing up outside of the noise of their daily intake.

And even if they do notice money is down what does that tell them? How do they know that it is their corrupt ceo who is the problem, and if they did how likely is it that the board will remove him? It isn't. There's no meaningful oversight that can be exercised.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
Compare the percentage of corrupt CEOs to that of politicians.

I'm sure you will find some shocking results.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

but since neither of us can provide any hard numbers, what's the point?

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
Come up with a list of the CEOs that have been charged with corruption. Compare that number to the number of companies in the American economy.

Then take the number of politicians that have been charged with corruption. Compare that to the total number of politicians.

Compare those two percentages.

I'm certain that I can find a larger percentage of corrupt politicians than I can CEOs.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

that oversight of politicians is more rigorous than of CEOs :)

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Brian Simpson's picture
otherwise I would have had to mistake you for an idiot for thinking that there is oversight of politicians.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

*cough*Nixon*cough*

Most powerful man in the world brought down over a simple burglary (and more to the point a coverup of same). In just the last couple years we've had a dozen or so high profile cases of politicians brought down on prostitution, money laundering, influence peddling, and so on. And that's only the big national cases that get lots of press.

Compare that with W.R. Grace and Company. People are still trying to get justice for the company knowingly poisoning its customers (as well as the town of Libby Montana).

I think you'd have to admit that oversight of politicians is much better than that of private industry. Now, granted, it could certainly be better, and I'm all for transparency laws.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

David Hinz's picture

Quote:
It also takes a pole and some bait, which is a pretty sweet deal for the guy who sells both. Especially when he gets to decide who eats and who starves.

And are there no prisons? No poorhouses?

The strawman of the cold cruel businessman who will steal bread from the poor rather than help his fellow man. Look up the world PHILANTHROPY -- the word government does not appear anywhere in the definition.

Who does a better job of providing charity in a natural disaster -- individual citizens or governments? The charity of the American people dwarfs the alms doled out by governments around the world.

But charity without need -- government assistance designed to keep the poor poor; to keep the poor compliant and dependent upon government is a cruelty beyond even Scrooge.

Quote:
Conveniently a way to do that is through social welfare programs which also means that you have the moral good of not letting your fellow citizens starve or go homeless or uneducated or sick, etc

American charities well pre-date government assistance, and we never did allow our poor to starve in the streets. We send millions of tons of food around the world to feed the starving poor in other countries -- even those Socialist paradises who have consistantly been unable to feed themselves. Go read the actual journals of the Pilgrims to see how well Socialism feeds its people.

Homelessness? It sure seems like govenment programs have created more homelessness in recent years.

Uneducated? Well the government run schools have certainly done much to educate our young... talk about failed government policies.

sick? Well yes, a person without health insurance CAN walk into a hospital, but that doesn't mean they will be treated. What? You say the will be treated -- regardless of ability to pay? Sorry, my bad.

Of course, FREE healthcare like what they have in Britain or Canada would be preferable -- as long as you can live long enough to see the specialist or to schedule the operation. Good luck, but then you can always do what the wealthy Brits and Canadians do, come to the US for treatment.

etc... yes, et cetera indeed

I loathe Dickens :)

Quote:
The strawman of the cold cruel businessman who will steal bread from the poor rather than help his fellow man.

Is it still a strawman after you listen to the recordings of Enron traders joking about grandmas freezing to death?

Quote:
Look up the world PHILANTHROPY -- the word government does not appear anywhere in the definition.

True, when a government does it it is called "aid."

Quote:
Who does a better job of providing charity in a natural disaster -- individual citizens or governments?

Government. Charity through private citizens is sometimes larger but it is also badly coordinated, given to those the person likes or knows rather than to those who are actually th emost needy. Which is why it tend to accomplish little unless coordinated by a government or NGO.

Individual charity is more about stoking the ego of the giver than it is really helping the needy.

Quote:
government assistance designed to keep the poor poor; to keep the poor compliant and dependent upon government is a cruelty beyond even Scrooge.

It sure would be.

Quote:
American charities well pre-date government assistance, and we never did allow our poor to starve in the streets.

Excuse me? Are you literally saying you don't believe anyone has ever starved in this country? I must be misunderstanding you.

Quote:
Homelessness? It sure seems like govenment programs have created more homelessness in recent years. Uneducated? Well the government run schools have certainly done much to educate our young... talk about failed government policies.

I dispute your premise in both cases.

Quote:
sick? Well yes, a person without health insurance CAN walk into a hospital, but that doesn't mean they will be treated. What? You say the will be treated -- regardless of ability to pay? Sorry, my bad.

They can get emergency care, true. And that's a funtion of socialize medicine, not capitalist, so I don't see how it supports your point. Under capitalism, if they don't pay they don't get anything.

Quote:
Of course, FREE healthcare like what they have in Britain or Canada would be preferable -- as long as you can live long enough to see the specialist or to schedule the operation. Good luck, but then you can always do what the wealthy Brits and Canadians do, come to the US for treatment.

or it could be like France or Sweden, or any number of other places with better overall health care than the US. Now, yes, rich people do fly to the US for treatment, that's a function of having a capitalist segment of the health care industry that caters to those who can afford more life than their fellows.

Whether you are comfortable with that I suppose depends on whether you really believe the rich are better than us nobodies. Know what I mean?

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Jaded's picture

RICH....it's what keeps me getting up and going to work to achieve a vast plethora of items such as SUV's and houses etc....the bulk of the RICH have worked hard for their money and deserve all it buys they do not deserve to have their hard earned dollars taken by the likes of you and your marxist commander to be given to the laziest amongst us as some God given right....the only right you have is to get up breathing in the morning after that it's up to you!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Which I'm sure shocks you.

Quote:
the bulk of the RICH have worked hard for their money and deserve all it buys

I see two things wrong with this statement. The first being your assertion that the rich work hard for their money. The two best ways to become rich in america have nothing to do with working hard, they are inheriting wealth or making money off of investments. The people who work the hardest, i.e. laborers, are inevitably those who have the smallest share of the pie.

In the second place I find the idea that working hard for something entitling you to use the fruits of that labor however you want to be, shall we say, unsupported? I could build myself a small nuclear weapon in my garage if I worked hard (I'm a physicist by background, so I'm not actually joking here). And yet I don't think that putting in that labor entitles me to use said weapon.

I believe we have responsibilities beyond ourselves and our personal desires. I also believe that we have personal desires that are best served by altruism, even if we don't always realize it, as opposed to selfishness.

Quote:
they do not deserve to have their hard earned dollars taken by the likes of you and your marxist commander to be given to the laziest amongst us

*shrug*
As I see it, they don't have any right to gobble up a disprorportionate amount of resources to the detriment of everyone else. Even if they worked hard to do so.

Quote:
the only right you have is to get up breathing in the morning after that it's up to you!

That's odd, you seem to have just argued that you have some right to keep anything you worked for...

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Jaded's picture

lets get to the crux of your dubious blather...

"*shrug*
As I see it, they don't have any right to gobble up a disprorportionate amount of resources to the detriment of everyone else. Even if they worked hard to do so."

Well the beauty of America is you do not get to apportion resources based upon your socialist views....you can of course go live...well.....where would your immature and "give me" attitude best work....Venezuela or Cuba or Russia or Zimbabwe.

"That's odd, you seem to have just argued that you have some right to keep anything you worked for..."

My, my but you are "quick" you figured out that I believe I have a right to keep what I worked for....YEP...that about covers it and oh by the way I and my ILK will be working hard to ensure that indeed we keep the lion's share of what we work for....we shall not allow the "elite" or as I like to call them SLEAZY THIEVES to take any more.....you see oh brilliant one /snark off....we Americans from the flyover regions which by the way is the bulk of this great country will not allow you and yours any quarter in taking from us that which we work hard for....however I would note you probably have not had a hard day's work in your life quite like your MESSIAH....

It will be with great pleasure to watch you and yours fall to the wayside of the political spectrum and go back to being where all trolls belong....UNDERGROUND....you little peon's of the communist/socialist/marxist brigade have shown yourselves and the vast majority of the sleeping masses have awoken and see you and will defeat you and your GRUBBY nasty hands from touching that which they worked for.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Quote:
Well the beauty of America is you do not get to apportion resources based upon your socialist views....you can of course go live...well.....where would your immature and "give me" attitude best work....Venezuela or Cuba or Russia or Zimbabwe.

Sure, but another beauty of the system is that americans can work to change the system, even in ways you don't personally like.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

... and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were replying while I posted this - whereby I very nicely (I thought) asked everyone to MoveOn.org out of this thread.

So everyone, let's all, dare I say, Move On...

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Just wanted to get your free market credentials, since I am sure you have a lot of first-hand experience running businesses, hiring, firing, dealing with regulations, taxes, etc.

I am really interested in knowing. Or actually, I am really interested in getting what I already know confirmed.

and it's one you've heard of. I don't like to explicitly state the name because then I can be accused of speaking on behalf of the company (which is a no-no), but it isn't hard to figure out. We make semiconductors.

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

You need to resign now. No way you can continue to be exploited and held down by the man, and take that dirty money.

Power to the workers! Quit now - that'll show 'em!

Capitalism pays your bills, makes the Prius payment, allows your sorry butt go to the finest doctors in the world, and if something is wrong with you, provides treatments that extend your life / ability to spew nonsense a few years. You spit on the people that feed and clothe you.

Typical.

Brian Simpson's picture
Let it go.


Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
gamecock's picture

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

DocJ's picture

We, as in the editorship of TMR, have given you a pretty wide berth in trying to get your points across during your roughly 1-day posting history here. I think you would be compelled to agree, no?

Of late however, you've tossed out a couple of unbelievably silly strawmen (the nuclear bomb thing was a howler), deliberately misstated some basic political theory (for example, the delegation of rights among sovereigns is not, in fact, arbitrary), and now you're dealing in Known FactsTM. To wit...

Quote:
Compare that with W.R. Grace and Company. People are still trying to get justice for the company knowingly poisoning its customers (as well as the town of Libby Montana).
(emphasis mine)

...is the last such Known FactTM you will post here. Are we clear?

And no, it's not negotiable, I don't care that Mother Jones said They Lied, period. Full stop. Capice?

As for everyone else, this thread stopped being about the Minimum Wage a long time ago and is going, well, toward an unhappy place. Perhaps it would be best if everyone took a few deep breaths and moved on. 'K?

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Quote:
Quote:
Compare that with W.R. Grace and Company. People are still trying to get justice for the company knowingly poisoning its customers (as well as the town of Libby Montana).
(emphasis mine)

...is the last such Known FactTM

How is this a "knownfact"? The US DOJ has indicted them for precisely that. To wit:

Quote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency announced today that a federal grand jury in the District of Montana has indicted W.R. Grace and seven current and former Grace executives for knowingly endangering residents of Libby, Montana, and concealing information about the health affects of its asbestos mining operations.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/February/05_enrd_048.htm

I came. I saw. I posted. Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

DocJ's picture

Two problems here:
1) Yes, it's an indictment - I was, in fact, well aware of this. Trouble is tthere's the whole "innocent until proven" thing to contend with there, and
2) I said, pretty damn clearly, this was not negotiable

Farewell, somewhere else.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Night Twister's picture

Did you have fun playing with the troll?


"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
David Hinz's picture

It looks like I missed out on most of today's fireworks here. Too bad, while I disagreed with most everything he said, and certainly everything he stands for, I appreciated the fact that he was able to do it in a more-or-less polite manner. Not at all like most liberals.

Perhaps I'll take a sojourn back over to Swords Crossed and engage him on his turf. I'm sure in his mind he won this encounter, and was only banned because he was winning.

Sadly. the country has wandered far enough down the path to Socialism that many people will agree with him -- caught up in the redistribution of wealth from the rich to everyone else.

Rush took a call today from a liberal who sounds very much like our sadly departed friend. He was discussing this very issue of the minimum wage and the loss of jobs that resulted from Congress raising it.

That caller argued that the redistibution of wealth was necessary, since 90% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of only 10% of the population. I wonder if that fellow who called, and our late departee, would be willing to give up 75% or more of THEIR income, to be redistributed to more needy peoples in Guatamala, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. You see, the US making up what is it, 6% of the world population, accounts for MOST of that top 10% of concentrated wealth. People making $35,000-$50,000 are easily among the top 10% of world earners.

I mean, SURE we'd all like to become wealthy, but is it FAIR for us to get ahead when there are so many people starving in [fill in your most popular poor nation]? There needs to be a WORLDWIDE minimum wage, thereby assuring equality for everyone. And you can be sure, we would all become equal.

David Hinz's picture

Liberals always confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. If two people both start out in life at roughly the same level, and one becomes wealthy, while the other stays poor, then someone must have cheated.

Steve Foley's picture

...like whiners, they're always looking for others to make them feel better instead of doing those things they need to do to make themselves feel better!

DocJ's picture

Indeed - I have to tell you that I really didn't feel particularly good about this one. I mean, the guy is a Marxist and (probably) a believer in Christian Liberation Theology, but that wasn't the problem. We've long lamented that we don't get nearly enough talk from folks on the other side and our nearly departed friend was certainly among the more cogent of that lot.

The problem was, even after repeated attempts to get him to behave, he wasn't able to keep his yap shut. After giving him two attempts to back-away slowly, with nobody worse for wear (and even giving him the last word on more than one occasion), he simply couldn't let it go and decided to test me on a point I made very clear was not open to negotiation.

In fairness, I saw his response coming - having perused the summary of said indictment earlier today.

But while the issue of Indictment == GUILTY!! (so long as it's a Capitalist Running Dog we're talking about, of course) was the last straw for me it should be clear that alone wouldn't have been even close to calling for a banning.

Too bad. So sad. Oh well.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Jaded's picture

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion