Well if there's no one else willing to do the work less I'm kind of screwed huh.

And I know you're just being hyperbolic with the gun metaphor since that actually would be illegal.

Just a random sampling of the guy's posts.

Free market economics is a powerful principle that is very effective all the time. However it's also to acknowledge the unique power disparity between employer and employee and one of the things I want my government to do is to work to prevent citizens from getting taken advantage of.

minimum wage should be $40 an hour. everyone will be rich

ipads for all

reductio ad absurdum. always a classic

Why not also get rid of gun laws. Let the free market decide who gets shot and who doesn't.

"reductio ad absurdum. always a classic"

2 Scenarios.

You think: That the free market should decide how much someone should get paid. If there is someone willing to do the same amount of work for less, you should let them.

Reality: This "job" thing is a exchange of work for money but the corporation has all the negotiating power because you will always have to eat in the end. Therefore a "job" is something that a business exploits as much as possible to make as much money as possible.

----------------------------------
You think: There should be a minimum wage or some sort of living wage laws. People should have more ability to negotiate a wage.

Reality: This "job" thing is still an exchange of work for money but now the individual has some leverage. No matter the job he will be able to eat in the end. A "job" is still something that a business exploits as much as possible to make as much money as possible BUT if you cannot pay your workers a certain amount your business will not be profitable. So businesses that can't pay their workers a living wage will die.

------------------------------------


One of these is significantly better then the other one imo.

You mean like like what the republican house just tried to do with the payroll tax cut until Obama and public opinion curbstomped them into capitulation?

Yeah I'd feel real confident about the middle class getting a break if the republicans controlled everything. Those flat taxes they keep proposing are awesome for the middle class and in no way continues their trend of giving everything away to the already obscenely wealthy.

Too bad there wasnt really a payroll tax cut, just a payroll tax deferral.

Im stealing that to correct people every time they bring up the Bush tax deferrals.

Is it right to tell someone to starve to death because they're not willing to submit to a job where they give up 50%+ of their generated value so some guy's account can go up another .00001%?

hrmmmmmm

And was that link what you were referring to when you said this?

Were you trying to demonstrate that social mobility is alive and well, or something? The title of that chart is "Tracking the same households over time shows significant income mobility", and yet it doesn't really seem to display that.

Only 13% of the top earners in 2007 came from 2001's bottom 60%? Only 13% of 2001's bottom 20% of earners made it to the top 60% in 2007? MOBILITY!

So you're going to bat for republicans fighting like hell to enforce the temporary-ness of the payroll tax cut, thus raising your taxes (assuming you have a job and make < $250k), while republicans were willing to destroy our credit rating to not adhere to the temporary-ness of the Bush tax cuts, thus preserving more income for people making $250k+?

If they tried hard enough I think the republican party could convince its base to cut off their own big toes.

Suzzer you do recognize that the Republican led house was not against extending the payroll tax holiday but rather wanted spending cuts to be included in the package? Obviously the house got thoroughly outplayed by the administration but somebody who is remotely politically aware shouldn't buy into the spin.
Here is a story on the House passing a bill that extended the payroll tax holiday for a year (yes with strings attached) on December 13th as a reminder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us...l-tax-cut.html

Dude, that's not evidence of a system that keeps poor people poor, it's just evidence that all poor people are stupid and lazy and should be taken off welfare.

That "extension" was in no way a bona fide attempt to extend the social security tax. It bore more resemblance to a "repeal Obamacare and shove the Keystone XL pipleine down the throat of Nebraskans who don't want it as planned" bill that also included a payroll tax cut extension. The GOP passed it for exactly the reason why you're linking to it now: so that they can claim that they support the tax cut, even though they support it in only a very specific way that will never ever happen. Pure politicking.

Your 1st view of the world is a fallacy because the corporation is just the ownership of the capital such as the factories, machines, or stores. You have the choice not to use the corproation for goods or work there. It is their terms because they own the company. If you buy a car and the insurance, do I have the right to take it to my house and drive it?
They have the right to charge any cost of labor they want $1 per hour if they want. It is called property rights. The scenario you paint is Obamaism or socialism.

Your 2nd view of the world is wrong too. You pay a lowest wage possible such that you only have 1 worker for the job. If that wage is just above the food amount and you still have job applicants, that means the world is overpopulated or at least needs more farmers/fisherman. The present amount of work today needed for 1 farmer to feed someone is about 1/2 hour per week, maybe 1/8 hour per week. The question to ask is why am I being offered 40 hours of work in the factory is equilivent to 1/8 hour of work as a farmer when I work just as hard? If you are a dumbocrat you say tax the farmer more. If you are a libertarian you say become a farmer, giving the existing farmers more time for vacation.

And where was the same spending cut concern about extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?

Do you honestly think the republicans care even a tiny fraction as much about giving the middle class any tax relief as they do about giving the same to the wealthy? Please show me the last time the middle class got a tax cut from the republicans that the wealthy didn't get twice as much. Flat tax is like 5-10x in favor of the wealthy.

They clearly overplayed their hand but it is simply wrong to think that Republicans are against tax cuts.

Republican empty political rhetoric: We are all for the middle class and small businesses.

Republican reality: More tax cuts for the wealthy, **** the middle class and small businesses.

When it was a tax cut on its own, they were against it, at least until they realized that their position was fantastically unpopular. Then they go and try to show they are actually for it without actually being for it. A majority of the Congresscritters in both houses who voted for the final bill that passed were Democrats, and a majority of the opposition was Republicans.

You missed the entire point of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the republicans would "give the middle class a break".

Re-read my posts where I stated there needs to be both massive cuts and increases in taxes. The reality of the situation is that taxes, wether overt or through taxation, are going to be levied against all classes. Obama's just picking the "rich" to raise taxes on because he is interested in class warfare and wants to score political points. Anybody that actually wanted to deal with the situation would make massive cuts and raise taxes until things were at least moderately manageable. Neither party wants to do that though.

The politicians will just pick the easiest way politically to deal with this whole thing and that will be some sort of default.

I don't care what point you were trying to make. My point is one side continually tries to give tax cuts to the wealthy (and to oil companies), and actually fights tax cuts to the middle class. The proof is in action, not inane talking points "Class Warfare" - which seem to inspire you to go to bat for go to bat against your own self-interest. Personally I look at the party who went to bat to put an extra couple thousand in my pocket this year vs. the one who went to bat to put another $100 million in some hedge fund manager's pocket.

And personal gain aside, there's a pretty good argument that a tax cut to the middle class is a lot more stimulative than giving Steve Wynn more money to invest in Macau. Globalization really delays the trickle in trickle-down economics.

-I'm pretty sure you are confusing money (capital) with a wage (contract). If you can make the distinction you can see why your analogy doesn't work.

-You are also confused about property rights. Property rights entail your right to your property. A corporation does not own the labor. I think what you're referring to is called slavery.

-When you are referring to the right of corporations to pay as low wage as they want and not allowing individuals to coalesce and negotiate for better terms on their side you are protecting corporations over individuals. Even a dumbocrat (so very clever of you) can see why this would make for a bad society.

-If the wage is just above the food amount --> the world is overpopulated. Explain to me how you made this jump because I could see several reasons for this such as corporations enslaving the working class.

-"If you are a dumbocrat you say tax the farmer more" -Steelhouse
The quoted region is not only false equivalence but you didn't use any reading comprehension. I said there should be a minimum living wage. If businesses aren't able to pay their workers this living wage then they shouldn't be businesses.


Lastly, the role of government should not be to protect a businesses right to attack individuals. Rather it should be to protect an individuals right to defend himself from the business.

1. It protects the rights of all potential employers (that's all of us last time I checked), especially those of us with low capital.

2. Lol, so you will just pretend that these businesses don't just move to China/Mexico and the ones that stay here just exploit illegal immigrants to do the low pay/skill jobs with zero government protections.

Your second point is blatantly anti-free enterprise, totally unrealistic, and generally a really bad line of thinking which inadvertantly exploits people the worst. You really think that people should just be on welfare rather than enable low profit margin job creation. And that low profit margin and under-capitalized enterprises simply shouldn't start up. Lol nice economic thinking there. Go Team Change We Can Believe In!