Is a radical increase in minimum wage a catalyst towards slavery
Posted by Dobrien 8 years, 3 months ago to Government
I feel the dependent on entitlements class , the unemployed will increase with wages set by govt.mandate versus supply vs demand. When dependent you become enslaved .
Employment is about to be controlled by them too. Set the minimum wage and you cut out the possibility of getting a job that you may NEED, but no one can pay you less than the federal minimum so the job doesnt exist at all.
That leaves welfare if your skills and opportunities arent worth $15. So it is slavery.
The next government control will be that its forbidden to lay anyone off (does that sound like 10-289?). This will be necessary, and quickly, to prevent mass layoffs due to the minimum wage hike.
There is a lot of talk these days about how "We" are our brothers keeper...that is not true, however when government or anyone else for that matter, gives a handout instead of a hand up...you become their keepers.
Economically, we know how this goes; Wages go up without competence and increased productivity, prices go up; Now, wages must go up so that one can pay for the higher cost of products and services...then prices must go up again. Consider what once cost .05 cents now costs $5.00 and the product is the same now as it was then,
Released prisoners cannot get work, the minimum wage makes it tough to re-integrate into society and avoid going back to jail - a problem clearly shown in the figures.
The minimum wage locks them into a permanent underclass.
http://ipa.org.au/news/3482/the-minim...
If the sentence had meaning it would work. If it doesn't work it has no meaning. You want to hire a faulty product - givent he recidivism rates? Fine. You hire them.
From your link: But there is one policy that actually renders many unemployable and locks them in a permanent underclass: the minimum wage.
Because the law isn't trying to make peasants out of peasants, but out of small business owners. Minimum wage hikes drive small businesses out of business entirely, swelling the ranks of the peasant class. Hikes also enrage the peasants against the middle class - rather than the self-proclaimed lords - by blaming them for the lords' own rulings!
Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[50] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[51] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[10]
In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[52] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[52] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[10] Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[52] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[52] Frank stated further that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration's approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush's desk in July 2008. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[citation needed]
he pushed them to give mortgages to unemployed, illegal immigrants, and was the one who pushed the "no SSN needed for mortgage" program. The bankers, seeing a huge amount of loan origination fees and loans backed by the gov't, went for the ride. Got huge bonuses, and proms and all, for riding the tiger. Then, the looters paid for their social program by just bowing a whole bunch of funny money by cooking the books, making huge loans and forgiveness, etc. The periphery was all the other finance houses and businesses had to bailed out, as they took their corporate money and bought in on a sure thing. More gov't bailouts. And lots of he said/she said finger pointing by both sides. Net result: another trillion in debt, and no one to blame.
Minimum wage is the same thing, see my post on Oregon's insanity, where they couldn't wait to save the people (and get their votes) by raising it, with no research, no thought, no nothing. Now their own researchers say that Oregon will lose a huge amount of jobs, and thousands of businesses will go under, and all fast food will be automated. Those voters will not have any jobs, and be vassals of the state,and of course, no one will be blamed. This is the insanity we call "freedom" and "democracy". Bah...
Your post regarding
Oregon's minimum wage increase which will result in more dependence on govt. as the unemployed ranks swell.
FelixO'Riley said below
"The welfare system is slavery as it forces people to vote for food"
Sound Banking in the US was destroyed by the 1913 Fed reserve act. Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island to craft a plan that has been progressing(sic) ever since.
I know checks and balances have been disappearing in my lifetime. Michael what was used to dismantle checks and balance system?
Recall Mama Obama ranting during the campaign that “some folks are going to have to give-up some of their pie so that others can have some?” Neither she nor the multitudes like her understand the basics of Economics 101. Our economy is not a zero-sum game.
It's my fu@$ng pie! Not yours. Go give them your pie. I hate people who think whats mine is theirs and what theirs is theirs. Oh, I just described a politician...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?...
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/...
Of course, the china part has been said to be untrue, but the furniture thing appears to be true.
Sep 9, 2015 - FAR-LEFT DEMOCRATS call themselves "progressives" these days, but they're actually reactionaries who favor the few against the many.
Some of the laws -- Los Angeles', and I think Philadelphia's -- exempt union-represented employees from the higher pay requirement. Thus the unions gain members while making us all worse off.
Wage and Price Controls don’t work. You and I can see it in everyday real life. Richard Nixon tried it and failed. The Pols that run the country can’t seem to see beyond the end of their noses. Actually, they know exactly what will happen but they’re so hell-bent to reward unions, they don’t care.
Why unions? Simple. If the minimum wage is increased, naturally the union wage must also be increased. Increasing the union wage rate keeps the membership in line and fattens the pockets of the union officials. In turn, it helps get the Pols re-elected. Talk about being hypocritical. The very Pols that caused the dollar to lose purchasing power due to government deficit spending now pretend to be so munificent as to help the poor earn a “living wage.”
Did I leave anything out.
If I may, my conclusion drawn from observation of the "public servants" actions or inactions have the RINO's culpable as well.
have been aimed at maximum independence. . the
ideal of complete independence is impossible,
though, so just max it out, I say. . and these dollar
shenanigans -- including all of the Fed actions --
just serve to mask the enslavement in process. -- j
.
We live and love life and value the freedom to pursue or Attain what we want and need to promote our well being and our families .
That is an effort due to govt. looters. I will be happy to exert the effort till the end.
Everyone else can choose their own path just don't interfere with mine.
.
Question Considering that the 2008 bankruptcy based on the government sponsored housing bubble bust, the government sponsored and controlled by regulation bank failures and the government sponsored ethanol scam hit us all for a minimum of 30% decrease in buying power of our 'earned' money and was never counted in COLA...maybe the $15 isn't so far off the mark in New Obama Dollars. But the moochers won't care either way they only have to collect. I'm thinking of calling the current currency ODD money for Obama Deficit Dollars. So much for his great economy. Most expensive toilet paper in the world
when most all his policy's are anti-economic. His concern for retirees military and civilians is woeful.
Regarding radical I did not mean political affiliation
Just was using it to describe a + 60% hike in the minimum where as a 5- 10% hike I would term moderate.
I have several doctor friends. One of them said when Obozocare was enacted that he was going to retire simply because Obozocare was turning him into a paper-pusher instead of a doctor.
I have heard radio ads for the robin hood public servants (sneer). That profess a vote for so and so will take away your entitlements.
from the Daily Reckoning
It really is that simple. If you’re a marginal worker, you’re expendable. The business for which you work can perhaps justify paying you $6.55 per hour to sweep or wash dishes. When then forced to pay $7.25 per hour for the same services, the business just decides they can no longer afford to hire the sweeper or dishwasher. They make other arrangements to get the jobs done. Meanwhile, the former dishwasher is now out of a job thanks to the Federal Government raising the minimum wage.
You are correct. The formula is simple. Minimum wages go up by mandate. Retailers who use it cut back on employees or go out of business. This increases the unemployment rolls, thus making more people dependent on government for sustenance. And as you point out, dependence eventually leads to slavery. The left loves dependency because that becomes their constituency.
There is a certain type of person whose thought process goes like this: "Well, I tried to get a job but no one is hiring. That's not my fault, so I might just as well take advantage of the government freebies every way I can." Of course, if this person spent as much effort applying for jobs as applying for freebies, it would eliminate at least some problems.
Or create there own service or business.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. -- Vito Corleone
How can we avoid that?
as far as i am concerned "thinking" is not what they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was just thinking this morning about how bad the GOP has screwed up and blew it...
If min wage were higher than the equilibrium price for unskilled worked, it would create unemployment; just as any price floor creates surplus supply. I don't think that's happening now, so it's primarily a thing to get people fired up about. Raising it won't improve the life of the poor or bring about slavery. They could abolish it altogether tomorrow or raise it 20% without it really affecting things much.
Moveon.org Is petitioning for that increase. Sanders is , DC raised it to that. LA city as well. Raising LA employment payroll expense $7.5 billion. This is another attack on small businesses the true life blood of job creation.
It certainly would be a tough decision to make that change as I'm sure for a variety of reasons you would like to produce here.
When the day comes that I have to lay these people off, I will just tell them that the government did this to you. They probably voted for Hillary and Obama actually.
It's a way to feel like we're doing something about poverty while actually making things slightly worse.
I wonder how the ten year experienced employee who received raises over the years reaching that level of pay will feel?
I think it would affect rural young people more. I'm not sure what affect it would have on urban area, but gut feeling is less. I think in all areas it would increase under-the-table work.
"I wonder how the ten year experienced employee who received raises over the years reaching that level of pay will feel?"
I think they'd be less affected. They might benefit in some ways because the market will need people with higher productivity, which in some jobs comes with experience, who can justify the higher prices.
Thinking about the winners and losers of bad policy reminds me of how I think we approach healthcare. It's like we're moving coins around, stacking them in different piles, trying somehow to make them worth more than they are.
Re : ACA I agree "it's moving coins around stacking them in different piles" right it takes healthcare dollars from producers and gives those dollars to moocher looters to moochers
We both think it's bad for everyone. You think it's slightly worse for urban people, and I think it's slightly worse for rural people. You think it presents a psychological issue for workers whose rate was already near the increased minimum wage before the it was increased, and I say it doesn't. It doesn't really matter exactly who it affects how much. We both think it's bad.
As FelixO'Riley wrote "The welfare system is slavery as it forces people to vote for their food."