If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live upon?

[Vic]

Lol. Statists.
This is how people like you manage to interpret the constitution as the communist manifesto. You just make up shit to read however you want, combined with no grasp of history or of what anything actually means.

Protecting a RIGHT is not the same thing as physically protecting what that right secures. You have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly. That is NOT the same as a guaranteed police escort when you're assembled with your ilk of like-minded knuckleheads. You have a RIGHT to freedom of the speech and press... that does NOT mean government is providing you with a printing press and typing the words for you.

Anyway, you guys are a good illustration of how statists twist litterally everything into big government worship.

You actually manage to get big government worship out of the libertarian agenda! LOL!

Only because you made that up.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol. Statists.
This is how people like you manage to interpret the constitution as the communist manifesto. You just make up shit to read however you want, combined with no grasp of history or of what anything actually means.

This is pure psychological projection. You seriously don't know what property rights are but you're trying to argue with people by telling them they don't understand what things mean.

Baffling.

Protecting a RIGHT is not the same thing as physically protecting what that right secures. You have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly. That is NOT the same as a guaranteed police escort when you're assembled with your ilk of like-minded knuckleheads. You have a RIGHT to freedom of the speech and press... that does NOT mean government is providing you with a printing press and typing the words for you.

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what property rights are. As previously mentioned, property rights are the ability to use, profit from, transfer, etc, property. It would be literally impossible to protect those rights in many cases without physically protecting what the right secures. You cannot use property that is legally yours if someone stole it. You cannot successfully sell property to someone else if they defraud you. In all of those cases the government exists to remedy such actions, thereby securing the property rights of individuals.

This is not a controversial idea, it is what the libertarian party themselves states. To quote their party platform:

(3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

They specifically call for the government to prohibit robbery and fraud, which is explicitly stating that they wish the government to protect people's property from others. There's no way around this.

So seriously, go learn the first thing about what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

Anyway, you guys are a good illustration of how statists twist litterally everything into big government worship.

You actually manage to get big government worship out of the libertarian agenda! LOL!

Or... you know... we quote explicitly from their own party platform about what they think the role of government is. You're an impressive combination of bluster and near total ignorance.

 

[Zaap]

I think you're wrong on that. The government provides you with freedom of assembly by then providing police to protect your protest (if necessary). They wouldn't let a competing assembled group wade in and hit your group over the head with bats. Backing that right up with physical force if required is essential.

Same thing with owning a printing press - the government won't buy it for you, but they will provide armed protection to keep the mob outside your door from coming in, smashing the press and stringing you up. It's inherent to the right.

Its been pointed out several times in this thread: government/police have ZERO obligation to protect you before the fact from either thing. Its great if they do, but in all cases they won't.

You're simply trying to create a construct where NOT having total anarchy and having rule of law = government obligation to protect physical property. There's a wide gulf between those things.

Police will likely stop a mob only if there's some imminent public threat... not acting as your personal bodyguard or property protection services. Hell, no business or private entity would even hire security services if what you were saying was strictly true; why have the expense?

Rather than explicitly protect your printing press, the police will be far more likely to take your statement about having your press smashed by an unknown intruder, and gee that's too bad, and we'll let you know if we find out anything.

You also won't find a cop popping up in every dark alley you walk down...the best you can generally hope for is that the threat of capture and punishment for anyone who assaults you is enough deterrence to protect you. You're delusional if you think your right to not be mugged or assaulted litterally means a guarantee or even expectation of police protection before the fact.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Ahh, so it's the top 5% now. "Allowed to have" is a great choice of words. It's a very telling peek at your mindset.

It's gone from 1% to 5% percent in a very short time span. Mr. Snapper here will ratchet that number up as high as he feel it needs to be. 30%, 50%, 80% - there is no ceiling on how much should be the property of the state. He has lots of like-minded friends in government.

I've been referring to the wealthy as the "top 5%" for a long time. It's nothing new. I'm pretty sure I've been doing it since the talk of the "1%" started.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

This may be difficult for your tiny dogmatic mind to understand, but are you open to the possibility that there are different economic systems located on a continuum between outright pure socialism and laissez-faire capitalism? Has the possibility that there can be economic systems that have a mixture of socialist and capitalist economic policies in different aspects and to various degrees?

Not everyone who supports the notion that workers should receive a larger share of the wealth they produce and that the non-working wealthy do not necessarily deserve all of the income they receive is an outright evil communist. Not everyone who questions whether or not members of the top 5% are actually earning the income they receive and actually producing the value of wealth they are receiving is an outright evil communist.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I can just see the leftwing cavemen standing around, watching as the rightwing cavemen were trading , and deciding that it wasn't fair that they be allowed to trade their berries and sharpened sticks without giving some of their berries and sticks to the cavemen who sat around all day doing nothing.

And perhaps this exemplifies one of the shortcomings of the free market dogmatist mindset. They assume that the leftists simply think that the rich should give to the poor without contemplating that the real concern might be that some people are receiving more wealth than they have actually produced at the expense of the people actually producing the wealth.

 

[Zaap]

More laughable statist nonsense.

You're just doing more of the same; trying to float that the absense of anarchy and any system of laws = big government.

But then like I said, its how your ilk twists litteraly *everything*.

 

[fskimospy]

You're just doing more of the same; trying to float that the absense of anarchy and any system of laws = big government.

But then like I said, its how your ilk twists litteraly *everything*.

You're the only person who has ever said anything about big government. I simply told you the undeniable fact that one of the cornerstones of the libertarian party platform is to use the power of government to protect personal property. You were too dumb and ignorant to know what property rights even were or how they applied here, but you opened your mouth anyway.

The fact that you took people telling you that you were wrong about really basic facts as 'twisting everything' is pretty telling.

 

[Matt1970]

I've been referring to the wealthy as the "top 5%" for a long time. It's nothing new. I'm pretty sure I've been doing it since the talk of the "1%" started.



This may be difficult for your tiny dogmatic mind to understand, but are you open to the possibility that there are different economic systems located on a continuum between outright pure socialism and laissez-faire capitalism? Has the possibility that there can be economic systems that have a mixture of socialist and capitalist economic policies in different aspects and to various degrees?

Not everyone who supports the notion that workers should receive a larger share of the wealth they produce and that the non-working wealthy do not necessarily deserve all of the income they receive is an outright evil communist. Not everyone who questions whether or not members of the top 5% are actually earning the income they receive and actually producing the value of wealth they are receiving is an outright evil communist.

We already have a 39% Federal tax on the upper earners. A lot of states tack on another 10% and then anything left over is taxed at 8% when they spend it. Unless you make your money from capital gains the government already takes more than 1/2 their income. How much more can we keep squeezing them?

 

[Vic]

Zaap, aren't you the one twisting their argument by implying that the only way government protects property is through the police? Particularly when I already addressed this exact issue several pages back in this thread.

 

[Vic]

You're the only person who has ever said anything about big government. I simply told you the undeniable fact that one of the cornerstones of the libertarian party platform is to use the power of government to protect personal property. You were too dumb and ignorant to know what property rights even were or how they applied here, but you opened your mouth anyway.

The fact that you took people telling you that you were wrong about really basic facts as 'twisting everything' is pretty telling.

10 years ago, when this forum was populated predominantly by libertarians, this would not have even been a discussion (except maybe some uber intellectual debate about how to make government less intrusive while still acting as an effective arbiter of disputes).
Just goes to show how far the right has turned to the fascist.

 

[Oldgamer]

If you can have a comfortable life flipping burgers, what is the motivation to go to school and learn real skills?

Do you know how many college grads can't even get a job right now?? Most are having to settle on flipping burgers, or waiting tables.

I will never understand why we think someone doing hard labor has less worth than someone who is sitting at a white collar desk job.

It is ridiculous that so many think that someone working a hard 40-50 hours a week (especially manual labor) should not get paid a decent wage that will allow them to pay for basic food, shelter, and a means to live. Jesus people are so greedy and have some really messed up values in this country.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The top 5%? I think you need to examine which income levels constitute the top 5% before you make statements like that. Many of us are in the top 5% and aren't by any stretch "rich."

Can you just summarize what you think needs to be done exactly? I agree that a shrinking middle class is a huge problem, but I'm not sure I recall a succinct list of actions from you which would preserve the middle class.

Without putting too much time into it, briefly:

I would address the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage which dramatically increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor. (An increased supply of labor relative to capital or the demand for labor means lower wages. It's also a merger between our nation's economy and standard of living and that of the third world.) This means increasing tariffs and adopting a national industrial policy to bring back jobs that were shipped overseas (foreign production for domestic consumption). It also means deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing a moratorium on legal immigration or at least reducing legal immigration to a trickle. It also means ending or severely curtailing the foreign work visa programs such as the H-1B ("My job was bombed by the H-1B") and L-1 visas.

I would fix our nation's disastrous and inefficient health care system and replace it with real socialized medicine. It's currently consuming 17.6% of our nation's GDP and in-spite of that our businesses and economy are still heavily burdened by insurance benefit concerns.

I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.

I would end the War on Drugs, legalizing all drugs. This would reduce money wasted on the criminal justice system. At the very least, I would fully legalize and tax marijuana.

I would reduce the size of our military and military budget and avoid becoming entangled in foreign boondoggles such as the Iraq War.

I would also reform our higher education system such that our nation and populace no longer wastes money on higher education for which there is not a real-world demand. In reality, only a small percentage of jobs (perhaps 10-15%) actually require or make use of a four year college degree. So, I would find a way to reinstate some form of employment market feedback to college graduate production, such as allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I would also reform or curtail the federal student loan program. If higher education has an economic value, let private lenders fund it and let them be subject to bankruptcy protections just like for any other investment. I would also support a "clawback" policy that would hold colleges and universities accountable for higher education that does not provide a return-on-investment by forcing them to pay back a portion of the amounts of student loans discharged in bankruptcy. (This would probably reduce the number of excess colleges and universities by a significant amount.) What I'm proposing would result in a radical reform of higher education in this country. However, such reform is needed and the expense, waste, and inefficiency in this area is part of what's hurting the middle class.

---Not the proposals you expected to hear from someone that you might (in a knee-jerk fashion) typecast as an evil communist?

 

[Oldgamer]

Without putting too much time into it, briefly:

I would address the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage which dramatically increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor. (An increased supply of labor relative to capital or the demand for labor means lower wages. It's also a merger between our nation's economy and standard of living and that of the third world.) This means increasing tariffs and adopting a national industrial policy to bring back jobs that were shipped overseas (foreign production for domestic consumption). It also means deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing a moratorium on legal immigration or at least reducing legal immigration to a trickle. It also means ending or severely curtailing the foreign work visa programs such as the H-1B ("My job was bombed by the H-1B") and L-1 visas.

I would fix our nation's disastrous and inefficient health care system and replace it with real socialized medicine. It's currently consuming 17.6% of our nation's GDP and in-spite of that our businesses and economy are still heavily burdened by insurance benefit concerns.

I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.

I would end the War on Drugs, legalizing all drugs. This would reduce money wasted on the criminal justice system. At the very least, I would fully legalize and tax marijuana.

I would reduce the size of our military and military budget and avoid becoming entangled in foreign boondoggles such as the Iraq War.

I would also reform our higher education system such that our nation and populace no longer wastes money on higher education for which there is not a real-world demand. In reality, only a small percentage of jobs (perhaps 10-15%) actually require or make use of a four year college degree. So, I would find a way to reinstate some form of employment market feedback to college graduate production, such as allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I would also reform or curtail the federal student loan program. If higher education has an economic value, let private lenders fund it and let them be subject to bankruptcy protections just like for any other investment. I would also support a "clawback" policy that would hold colleges and universities accountable for higher education that does not provide a return-on-investment by forcing them to pay back a portion of the amounts of student loans discharged in bankruptcy. (This would probably reduce the number of excess colleges and universities by a significant amount.) What I'm proposing would result in a radical reform of higher education in this country. However, such reform is needed and the expense, waste, and inefficiency in this area is part of what's hurting the middle class.

---Not the proposals you expected to hear from someone that you might (in a knee-jerk fashion) typecast as an evil communist?

haha.. let me know when you run for President! You got my vote! =)

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Without putting too much time into it, briefly:

I would address the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage which dramatically increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor. (An increased supply of labor relative to capital or the demand for labor means lower wages. It's also a merger between our nation's economy and standard of living and that of the third world.) This means increasing tariffs and adopting a national industrial policy to bring back jobs that were shipped overseas (foreign production for domestic consumption). It also means deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing a moratorium on legal immigration or at least reducing legal immigration to a trickle. It also means ending or severely curtailing the foreign work visa programs such as the H-1B ("My job was bombed by the H-1B") and L-1 visas.

I would fix our nation's disastrous and inefficient health care system and replace it with real socialized medicine. It's currently consuming 17.6% of our nation's GDP and in-spite of that our businesses and economy are still heavily burdened by insurance benefit concerns.

I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.

I would end the War on Drugs, legalizing all drugs. This would reduce money wasted on the criminal justice system. At the very least, I would fully legalize and tax marijuana.

I would reduce the size of our military and military budget and avoid becoming entangled in foreign boondoggles such as the Iraq War.

I would also reform our higher education system such that our nation and populace no longer wastes money on higher education for which there is not a real-world demand. In reality, only a small percentage of jobs (perhaps 10-15%) actually require or make use of a four year college degree. So, I would find a way to reinstate some form of employment market feedback to college graduate production, such as allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I would also reform or curtail the federal student loan program. If higher education has an economic value, let private lenders fund it and let them be subject to bankruptcy protections just like for any other investment. I would also support a "clawback" policy that would hold colleges and universities accountable for higher education that does not provide a return-on-investment by forcing them to pay back a portion of the amounts of student loans discharged in bankruptcy. (This would probably reduce the number of excess colleges and universities by a significant amount.) What I'm proposing would result in a radical reform of higher education in this country. However, such reform is needed and the expense, waste, and inefficiency in this area is part of what's hurting the middle class.

---Not the proposals you expected to hear from someone that you might (in a knee-jerk fashion) typecast as an evil communist?

No, I don't think you're a communist -- you and I agree on many things (such as the fallacy of the "free trade religion," higher education reform, the military, marijuana legalization, etc) but I do think you're wrong about the top 5%. IIRC, that's a household income of roughly $170K or above and that isn't "rich" or even "wealthy" especially if you live in some of the more expensive areas of the country.

I don't disagree with health care reform. I do disagree with implementing a socialized system of medicine, however, and more for constitutional reasons. I'm tired of politicians of both stripes bending the words of the Constitution to fit their agendas. IMO, a health system is not an explicitly enumerated power of the federal government and therefore, should be reserved either for the states to do OR an amendment needs to be passed. I think we've hit the slippery slope where certain provisions of the Constitution have been abused by both parties and this needs to stop. Besides that, I have zero faith that the US government could run an efficient health care system.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

You should be paid for what the job is worth. Do I pay for goods simply on how long it took to produce? No, I pay for it based on its value.

A "living wage" is simply a wage that you can afford a place to shelter, food, and clothes. If you aren't happy that you cannot afford something, then do something to change that. Most people in the middle/upper classes got there through hard work. Yeah there are some who inherited it from family, but most people worked to get to where they are.

So, two points. First, you should be paid based on how much your work is worth. If you don't think that's high enough, then perhaps you should take some responsibility to change the situation for yourself. Second, just about any job pays a "living wage". You might not be able to afford a great place to live, or new materialistic things, or go on vacations but that isn't what a "living wage" is.

 

[BoberFett]

I've been referring to the wealthy as the "top 5%" for a long time. It's nothing new. I'm pretty sure I've been doing it since the talk of the "1%" started.

That's why it's so easy to ignore your tripe.

 

[slag]

So you have to assume a 20+ year old lives at home. That means adults. Teens in school with jobs work part time, not work for less, that means less benefits too (or none).

Bullllllllllssshhhhhiiitttttt

I was a teen in college for 3 years full time and had a full time job. I would never assume a 20 year old lived at home. When you graduate high school, you GTFO. It's time to grow up and live on your own.

 

[BoberFett]

I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.

Fuck you sideways with a rusty shovel.

 

[Veliko]

You comparing US wealth disparity to NK wealth disparity is absolutely laughable.

I didn't compare them, I merely used NK as an example of why wealth disparity is bad.

I do not care about wealth disparity in a country which provides easy methods for someone to be successful if they work for it... via tuition programs, job training, pre-setup job interviews, etc.

So do you care about wealth disparity or don't you? You either realise the problems that it causes or you don't.

And it has everything to do with what you've claimed in this thread... Your issues (as best as I can discern, anyway) revolve around our minimum wage not being enough to be "livable". Even though you refuse to define what you consider "livable", so it's a moot point.

You're all over the place.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I didn't compare them, I merely used NK as an example of why wealth disparity is bad.



So do you care about wealth disparity or don't you? You either realise the problems that it causes or you don't.



You're all over the place.

Are you intentionally obtuse, or is this just how your brain processes things?


We're talking about the wealth disparity in the US. What will it take to get through that thick skull, to make you understand that your nonsense about wealth disparity in NK is completely out of context here?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Do you know how many college grads can't even get a job right now?? Most are having to settle on flipping burgers, or waiting tables.

I will never understand why we think someone doing hard labor has less worth than someone who is sitting at a white collar desk job.

It is ridiculous that so many think that someone working a hard 40-50 hours a week (especially manual labor) should not get paid a decent wage that will allow them to pay for basic food, shelter, and a means to live. Jesus people are so greedy and have some really messed up values in this country.

A few points. Many college grads have issues getting jobs, I agree. However look at what many of those grads have degrees in. Out of the people I know who have graduated since 2008 (including myself in IT), the only ones having issues getting jobs are the "liberal arts" type degrees. Some examples are teaching, psychology, english, etc. The people I know who graduated with more technical kinds of degrees (IT, pharmacist, MD's, engineers) all got jobs within 6 months of graduation.

Another thing is that many college grads have gotten degrees from expensive schools that provide no benefit over cheaper schools. So now they have huge debt and student loans with degrees that aren't easy to find jobs in without experience.

People should not be paid more just to get paid more so they are now "middle class" because that is artificially inflating things and creating a bubble. You pay people based on two factors: how cheap can you get employees to do the job from the business side, and how much the market will support for that person to get paid. Walmart can pay their people more, but they have no problem finding people to work at the wages they pay. So why should they? Because it's the 'right' thing to do? Sure, in an ideal world they would pay more because they care about their employees. But we don't live in the ideal world. They are there to make money which is done by maximizing profits while minimizing expenses. If they didn't, they wouldn't have succeeded to be the company they are today and would have failed.

This is a problem created by our societal beliefs and views. Our culture believes in an economic Darwinism which creates this requirement of maximization of profits and minimization of expenses. Wall Street cares about share prices, meaning that companies will pay the least amount they can.

Without putting too much time into it, briefly:

I would address the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage which dramatically increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor. (An increased supply of labor relative to capital or the demand for labor means lower wages. It's also a merger between our nation's economy and standard of living and that of the third world.) This means increasing tariffs and adopting a national industrial policy to bring back jobs that were shipped overseas (foreign production for domestic consumption). It also means deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing a moratorium on legal immigration or at least reducing legal immigration to a trickle. It also means ending or severely curtailing the foreign work visa programs such as the H-1B ("My job was bombed by the H-1B") and L-1 visas.

I would fix our nation's disastrous and inefficient health care system and replace it with real socialized medicine. It's currently consuming 17.6% of our nation's GDP and in-spite of that our businesses and economy are still heavily burdened by insurance benefit concerns.

I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.

I would end the War on Drugs, legalizing all drugs. This would reduce money wasted on the criminal justice system. At the very least, I would fully legalize and tax marijuana.

I would reduce the size of our military and military budget and avoid becoming entangled in foreign boondoggles such as the Iraq War.

I would also reform our higher education system such that our nation and populace no longer wastes money on higher education for which there is not a real-world demand. In reality, only a small percentage of jobs (perhaps 10-15%) actually require or make use of a four year college degree. So, I would find a way to reinstate some form of employment market feedback to college graduate production, such as allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I would also reform or curtail the federal student loan program. If higher education has an economic value, let private lenders fund it and let them be subject to bankruptcy protections just like for any other investment. I would also support a "clawback" policy that would hold colleges and universities accountable for higher education that does not provide a return-on-investment by forcing them to pay back a portion of the amounts of student loans discharged in bankruptcy. (This would probably reduce the number of excess colleges and universities by a significant amount.) What I'm proposing would result in a radical reform of higher education in this country. However, such reform is needed and the expense, waste, and inefficiency in this area is part of what's hurting the middle class.

---Not the proposals you expected to hear from someone that you might (in a knee-jerk fashion) typecast as an evil communist?

When are you running? You have my vote

 

[nehalem256]

Bullllllllllssshhhhhiiitttttt

I was a teen in college for 3 years full time and had a full time job. I would never assume a 20 year old lived at home. When you graduate high school, you GTFO. It's time to grow up and live on your own.

Actually I think you will find it to be relatively rare across history/cultures for children to just reach some magical age and then immediately live the home. Especially when they have very limited income/skills/savings.

Seems to me like you probably have mommy/daddy issues.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Actually I think you will find it to be relatively rare across history/cultures for children to just reach some magical age and then immediately live the home. Especially when they have very limited income/skills/savings.

Seems to me like you probably have mommy/daddy issues.

I would say overall "american" culture is you can live at home after you turn 18 if you're in college. But, once college is over, time to move out.

Seems like the kids staying at home until late 20's is primarily an asian thing, and I personally wouldn't call it particularly healthy.

Edit: And in reply to the bold, the entire point of being a parent is to prepare your offspring for the real world. So, if they're late 20's, not in school, no way live on their own... That's really an indication of lack of parenting.

 

[Incorruptible]

The minimum wage should be abolished since the government has no right to dictate the wages. It needs to be between the employer and employee.

 

[Vic]

The minimum wage should be abolished since the government has no right to dictate the wages. It needs to be between the employer and employee.

Problems don't go away because you ignore them.
The problem here is that not everyone negotiates the same, or from same position even if in the same role. I'm not big fan of the minimum wage (IIRC there's a long thread here from some years ago where I argued against it and at length), but I have determined that it does serve a purpose insofar as preventing exploitation (and the subsequent cost that exploitation places on the rest of society, either through public assistance or crime).