Random Politics & Religion #14

Well if we re-evaluate districts and avoid gerrymandering them and completely reform campaign finance laws then republicans will fall out of favor in a lot of areas. Also higher voter turn-out will significantly hurt republican elections.

Where does it state that in the constitution? Generally curious.

Genuinely*

The EV's are based on congressional representation. The original plan called for Congress to elect the President directly but there were some who felt that would give Congress too much power and bypass the strength of the Presidential Veto and Executive appointment of the Judiciary, which are some of the checks and balances. So instead they created a system where each State would get a number of Electors equal to it's Congressional representation and thus preserve the Large vs Small State compromises, but the Electors would only be Elected for the purpose of electing the President and then go back to their regular jobs. The vote in a state is merely to signal to the Electors how the people feel about the different candidates and is in no way required to elect the President. Technically the Electors could just ignore the vote entirely and just elect Micky Mouse or Homer Simpson for the Presidency.

In this current environment created by PPACA redefining "part-time" rules, people have to work multiple jobs because the jobs they were offered went from ~36-40 hours per week down to less than 28 hours per week.

When you cut off 12 hours of wages, minimum or not, of course you are going to hurt, and of course you are going to need to get another job.

Minimum wage did not create the influx of people in minimum wage positions needing multiple jobs to survive. That was entirely Obamacare's fault, and you can thank your local community-organizer-as-president for that blunder.

Hopefully when they repeal Obamacare, they will repeal that specific portion of the law along with everything else.

Again, all nominal, but no real growth in wages. People will have more money in their checkbooks, but then everything will cost more so they have no actual purchasing power growth to rely on. In some cases/states, their purchasing power will decrease because of other factors associated with the additional costs with minimum wage increases. This will especially be prevalent in areas with high COL.

Minimum wage increases will not come close to addressing either of these issues you pointed out.


Seattle hasn't even instituted the $15/hr. wage increase yet. And while those studies allude to no changes, it also didn't provide the benefits you are hoping to happen. Even Washington Post, a heavily liberal news outlet, stated that the MW increases did pretty much nothing to help the very people they were targeting.

And other economists are showing that the study is showing that it's losing possible employment opportunities.

Not really a success story at the moment.

There is also no reason an adult above the age of 20 should expect a living wage with no effort. There are many industries out there that pays a "living wage" in many parts of the country, but they require skilled labor. Some of these industries are willing to educate those people into becoming skilled. But it's not a 1 way street, people have to want to work for a living.

A person should be able to make a living wage, and they should have the opportunity to earn it. Working at McDonald's is not earning it. Working at Wal-Mart is not earning it. Doing very little for society is not earning it.

It does. The very platform is to bring jobs back through tax initiatives and less stifling regulations. To make jobs come back naturally instead of forcing businesses to comply with government. Also to not create needless and inefficient government jobs just for the sake of creating needless and inefficient government jobs.

Where were those "shovel-ready" jobs that Obama promised 8 years ago?

Minimum wage increases do nothing to create work in the nation. That has been proven many times over. And people stating that "trickle-down" economics don't work apparently forgotten 1986-2008, when it did work.

Let me make this clear:

No
They
Don't

A 2% profit margin is not huge at all. It barely is above assumed inflation, and it kills the ability to reinvest/update machinery/facilities that either are needed now or will be needed in the near future. Most large businesses have historically been running at less than 4% profit margins for the past 8 years. That's a lot of reinvestment opportunities missed, which also is a factor in low labor participation rate and higher real unemployment rate.

That's a business decision made by a few companies. In reality, most corporations do not pay their executives at all (disclaimer: most corporations are considered small business, and cannot afford to pay their executives at all, i.e. the actual owners of the business). If you want to attack specific corporation pay structures, then attack specifically. Don't assume that all businesses are exactly like what Comcast is.

Again, depends on the business and on the industry. There are hundreds of restaurants just in San Antonio alone, and every single one of them can be classified as a small business, even the franchises of major fast-food joints like McDonald's. They will all be affected by price increases to labor.

You also have to realize that the majority of small businesses do have minimum wage earners, and they are dependent on the industry standard of wage earners. A CPA office will not have any minimum wage earners, even interns, while a grocery chain will be swarming with them.

There's a lot of assumptions in your post. You really need to learn a bit more about economics and accounting, and you will understand a lot more about the dynamics of business/governmental decisions and what they do to the nation at whole.

Article II, US Constitution

and to everyone else that wants to change the EC system...

go start your own country and do that there!

This is probably where our conversation will end, you are just as arrogant and ignorant as the liberal counterparts you complain about. Truth is you understand as much about as economics as I do or anyone else in this forum does, you are just full in your "rightness" that it is impossible to have a feasible debate with you about how to fix any of the issues plaguing our nation.

Honestly your retort would have made a great debate but your dismissive attitude shows your ignorance and inability to defend your position.

Was it his conclusion that PPACA is the reason that minimum wage does not match the cost of living and that corporations play games with peoples employment status and hours? Cause that ***had me dying at the ignorance of whats been going on in the corporate sector for the last 30yrs.

You accuse me of arrogance and ignorance? Your whole point is nothing but assumptions of what you think things are.

Can you counter any of my points I made? I made a lot, and I will even be so kind as to list them for you:

1) Obamacare reclassified part-time hours to determine who the company in question is required by law to offer health insurance for. As a result, businesses cut drastically the total number of hours in both full-time and part-time work to below the new part-time requirement.
2) Minimum wage increases are nominal in nature, but do not contribute to real increases in wages, no change in actual purchasing power, and in some states, especially those with high cost of living, lowers purchasing power to those who now work for the new minimum.
3) The study of Seattle's minimum wage increases have shown either no real change in benefits that were promised for said increases, and even shows lower employment opportunities in the area affected by such increases.
4) Minimum wage benefits unskilled work more than skilled work, and unskilled work shouldn't be considered for "living" wages because it doesn't produce effort equal to reward.
5) Republican's platform is for indirect increases in working benefits and wage increases, instead of direct and forceful mandates that does the opposite of what it was intended to solve.
6) Large corporations do not have high profit margins. That goes counter with the myth being presented by the left that companies are swimming in cash all the time. Also goes along with the myth that government fiscal responsibility should go out the door since they can print their own cash.
7) Most businesses, especially small businesses, do not pay their executives wages. Those that do, generally do not pay them extraordinary amounts. Don't lump what a few large businesses pay the best CEOs to retain them as normal.
8) Depending on the industry that the small business is in, minimum wage increases will do nothing, or they will destroy the business. You cannot expect labor to increase by 100% or greater and that business to stay in competition against other businesses in that industry. At the very least you will see prices increase for products significantly. At the very worst, you will see a lot less competition in that industry. If Obamacare has taught you anything, it's that less competition in an industry really hurts the consumer.

I closed with the assumptions sentence and ask that you try to understand how the world works before making blind assumptions into matters. Understand that some people, especially those with knowledge into subjects you are unfamiliar with, have more weight in their ideas than those who don't. Not everyone is knowledgeable in every subject, which is why I tend to stay away from science discussions.

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

"Wit is educated insolence"

P.S Don't even try it.

I'm passionate, not arrogant.

However, I'm not the one who's actually ignorant. Neither is eliroo, since he is actively trying to learn.

There are some people who are truly ignorant, and one of them is posting on this very page.

You're both. As are many people who post here. And on the internet in general. It's easy to be sure of yourself (and of others' wrongness) in the anonymity of the internet. It's a major problem that's reflected in society and, as I stated yesterday, has contributed to serious problems in our country recently.

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn NOTHING from history" From my history 101 professor.

Actually there were parties long before the revolution. A bunch of them. I think the federalists and anti federalists were the first ones to embrace all the colonies but there were parties within every colony. I know there were pro and anti slavery movements before the revolution, don't know if they could be called parties.

Except, unlike some people on this website, I try to show evidence to my points. Sure, sometimes the points are so obvious that I shouldn't have to show evidence, but those that are a little too complex to comprehend by some people, I show reasoning.

We can continue to have this debate about internet and the detriment to society it has caused if you would like.

And you're just a Canadian.

And a Texan, and don't you forget it!

This is relatively true, Obamacare is also responsible for higher premiums for insurance that provides less benefits. Though given our current insurance system it is/was a travesty that most companies weren't providing insurance in the first place. So this was a necessary fix that didn't take into consideration the greed and vileness of most company owners. Same thing with "Trickle-down" economics.

The biggest concern is of course small businesses, not franchises, which are directly impacted by this. But I think this is a problem that revolved around our insurance system and not necessarily Obamacare. I think if anything this is an argument that a single-payer system is what we need.


This is true and I generally agree with the fact that purchasing power will adjust with inflation. That doesn't mean we should just ignore minimum wage increases because of that. A little inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing and if Minimum wage is constantly adjusted to buying power that would resolve that issue. The standard should be about a living wage and while it may be hard to adjust when we start setting that standard it will eventually level out.



This is a true assessment, and in that matter we both would be wrong if we examine Seattles change. Also a lot of businesses have already hike their wages to 15 or have begun a slow crawl up to that wage. I think it would beneficial to keep an eye on their economy of the next year or so to see how it is impacted as more and more people are effected.

Seattle also had high wages in general before this law was passed. I think a true test would be to change it an area with higher wage inequalities and see the effect it has on the people and businesses. Also keep in mind that Minimum wage increase is just one tool of many that can be used to solve poverty.




I find this statement arrogant. If you want everyone to make a living then even the unskilled jobs need to pay a living wages. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. You can't simply say that every person should just get a better job because then no one will fill those "un-skilled" jobs. I agree that more Skilled jobs should pay higher but the additional money they get should be luxury not required to live. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I find it hard to make an ethical argument that the unskilled Americans who are working these jobs shouldn't be able to afford to live as well.

Life should not equate to "effort", Luxury should.

Furthermore if you are really going to address unskilled workers then you need to address our terrible education system, but again - Ignoring that is in the republican platform.



The republican platform has only contributed to putting more money into the hands of the wealthy and disparaging the poor. Their policies only promote corporate greed and you know that. Most, if not all, changes they promote only help the business owner and not the employees of them. I recommend reading up a bit on the Koch brothers, I have only barely begun learning about them, their empire and their influence on the republican platform but the little I have learned is enough to help me understand how the republican platform will never help the poor.

Most of the unintended consequences you have spoken about are all theories and not tested. Even in the case of Seattle it was proven that the negatives weren't as negative as we thought, same goes for the positives but that at the very least writes-off that untested speculation is bad for our economics.


6) Large corporations do not have high profit margins. That goes counter with the myth being presented by the left that companies are swimming in cash all the time. Also goes along with the myth that government fiscal responsibility should go out the door since they can print their own cash.


You are correct, Profit margins is the incorrect term. Large corporations have high profits though and are making a huge surplus of money meaning they can definitely afford to pay their workers higher wages. We can and should use both numbers when evaluating a corporations wealth and their ability to pay their employees more.

I'd hate to link huffpost but focus on the numbers : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walmart-wages-15-hour_us_575ec8f4e4b00f97fba8e18d


14.69 Billion dollar net income.

If they paid each employee 15$ an hour (5 more than their current average of 10) they would end up taking about 10.18 billion dollars off of their net income. This would bring the net income down to 4.69 Billion dollars before we consider how these families will have more money to spend AT walmart. While that may have a low margin % it is still a hefty sum of money.




Considering that these large businesses are the ones that hire a large amount of employees at minimum wage, these are the corporations we should be focusing on.



If all the companies raised their minimum wage then wouldn't they be on a level playing field? This is all just speculation that Seattle clearly disproves.





Except all of your statements are just a presumptuous as mine, if anything I've at least provided evidence that all the negatives you claim doesn't happen. You also have to understand that I am arguing, in part, on an ethical standpoint which in that case it isn't speculation. You can't argue a living wage, nor can you argue that working people don't deserve that. You are denying them a basic human right at that point. You were being extremely dismissive.

I'm guilty of that too though, so I can't point the finger at you without understanding my faults. I'm trying to understand other viewpoints though and its because of my open-mindness that my opinion on minimum wage laws has changed.

Not going to proof read this, sorry if its filled with errors.

Jee too many words, get your own forum you two!

Yea :( Sorry. I won't make any more big posts today.

I guess they call it universal healthcare for a reason.

And take josiah with you!!!

Jesus Howard Christ...