memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
oldroy wrote:
I can only argue with your words about throwing education into the argument. I don't think that my education a BS and a MS in Education with emphases in history and government should be used to determine what I would earn as a brick layer. Sure the education worked as long as I was in the right kind of work but it sure didn't fit more jobs than it did.
You are right. Those should only apply if they are a requirement or a tangentially related sk**l for a job in question. I've spent years on developing a theory I call "Labor Economics", and what I posted earlier is a summation to the tip of the iceberg as-it-were. It was in no way complete.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
memBrain wrote:
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should be based on one hour of unsk**led labor. So, a burger flipper (unsk**led labor) would earn $1/hr (the rate upon which all unsk**led labor is based. There should then be an automatic multiplier in effect to account for experience (after all, labor doesn't always stay unsk**led). That modifier would be an annual adjustment (arbitrarily say 25%). So, if a person were to have 2 years experience their hourly wage would be ((($1)*1.25)*1.25), or $1.56. Education should be a one time multiplier (per degree or trade certification earned). In this manner each person would be paid the minimum of what they are worth on paper. After that it's all based on market demand for labor, and the abilities of the individual in question. In short, each person would have a price floor, but no ceiling.
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should ... (
show quote)
Just one thing I want to add on this. In my system, a person should have to pay no more than the equivalent of one hour's pay for a meal (such as a McDonald's value meal for instance). That doesn't mean that every meal should be the same rate. We have restaurants for a purpose. Also, I tie t***sportation and mechanization of product chains into the system by relating their output to the equivalent in unsk**led labor. This would set a minimum price floor for all goods and services, subject to increases as the market will bear. Ok, that was two things. :P
memBrain wrote:
Pay particular attention to the areas marked in bold print. This gives Congress the power to legislate over all business conducted EXCEPT business that is conducted by citizens within a single state. So, the government may not make laws governing how you conduct business with a neighbor within your state borders. Once you have established diversity of citizenship (two parties from differing states) then the government has the authority to legislate said business.
Don't take this as support. However, it's in the Constitution. In fact, it's the taxation clause at the beginning that the Supreme Court established the viability of Obamacare.
Pay particular attention to the areas marked in bo... (
show quote)
I agree with you about the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps. It is obvious from reading the
Federalist Papers that the Framers feared standing armies and wanted us to rely on m*****as and a Navy instead. I wish we had. That would have kept us out of a great deal of mischief.
As for the minimum wage, the constitution is resoundingly silent on the subject and I believe that the ninth and tenth amendments are applicable to the matter. Philosophically, I disagree with you. The government should not be allowed to insert itself into the matters of private contracts, which is what employment is.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
The silence you mention can easily be absorbed by the points I outlined from the main body of the Constitution. I also happen to believe that there must be a minimum wage applied, or else you may end up with people being paid less than they're worth (from a living wage perspective) or even not being paid at all (economic s***ery). This is one are that it appears that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
With respect to a standing military, what I'd like to see is a consolidation of our forces thusly:
All branches of the services that have forces abroad will be consolidated with the Navy to establish our Expeditionary Force (EF). This force will remain as it stands as an all volunteer service, and in compliance with the Constitution as fulfilling the requirement of a standing Navy.
All remaining forces throughout the United States and it's territories will be consolidated as the Defense Force (DF). Any position requiring a term of enlistment longer than two years must be filled by a member of the EF. All other positions will be filled by m*****a by demand. Enrollment in the DF will be mandatory of all persons coming of age barring disqualifying mental or physical defect. During the initial period of enlistment, each person will be issued a weapon suitable to their training and the needs of the DF. These weapons will be assigned for the term of their lifetime, barring later disqualification for physical, mental, or moral (such as committing a crime, etc.) reasons. When not actively enlisted with the DF, these people will constitute the m*****a as defined by the Constitution.
Only qualified persons of the m*****a not actively participating in the DF may apply for membership with the EF based on the needs of the EF.
The following is an extension of the overhaul with respect of the military, but is more of an overhaul of our civil service system.
All persons being disqualified from participation with the DF will instead serve two years, upon coming of age, in an appropriate position within the Civil Services (CS). Employment within the CS may be voluntary with reception of civil service credits in lieu of payment which may be applied to government programs receiving said credits. Permanent employment with the CS may be sought at the need of the CS, and only for positions requiring continuity for greater than two consecutive years. All other positions are to be filled by volunteers. This is for all governmental offices.
The purpose of the Civil Service Credit system is to replace our existing welfare entitlement system. Credits can be redeemed for things like food stamps, health care, etc...The point being here that they are earned. This also resolves any problems arising from an excessively bloated bureaucracy as the majority of the people serving are either volunteers, or those serving a mandatory two year term of service when called to perform civic duty.
All terms of duty (two year) are by lottery based on the needs of the CS and DF respectively. All persons serving a term of two years are removed from the lottery for a period of ten years upon completion of service. The only exception being activation for service in the DF during a time of war.
All mandatory two year service periods will be paid a salary based on the national average income, plus CS Credits to cover any loss of income due to se******n for service. Persons leaving their occupation in order to meet their obligation of mandatory service shall have the right to resume their occupation with all appropriate increases they would have earned during their absence.
These changes (IMO) will go a long way to eliminating much of our present debt, and government bloat.
memBrain wrote:
The silence you mention can easily be absorbed by the points I outlined from the main body of the Constitution. I also happen to believe that there must be a minimum wage applied, or else you may end up with people being paid less than they're worth (from a living wage perspective) or even not being paid at all (economic s***ery). This is one are that it appears that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
I do not share your misgivings. S***ery is outlawed. Working for zero compensation is s***ery. S***ery can only be accomplished by the means of coercive force. How do you define the term "living wage?" How do you determine whether or not someone is underpaid? Do you have a workable standard? In what context would such a standard be applicable?
John Gult wrote:
I agree with you about the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps. It is obvious from reading the Federalist Papers that the Framers feared standing armies and wanted us to rely on m*****as and a Navy instead. I wish we had. That would have kept us out of a great deal of mischief.
You can blame Harry Truman for that, of course you might be writing in Russian.
I think you're all missing the point. The concept behind a minimum wage of $22/hr isn't about a living wage or the ability to support a family, that is all smokescreen.
It is simply another effort of the progressive l*****ts to implement "social justice" wherein all workers are paid the same, regardless of sk**l, job, capability, education, performance or any other criteria. In the l*****t socialist utopia all workers earn barely enough to survive while the majority of the proceeds of their labor are concentrated among the ruling elite who steal it at gunpoint.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
I am quoting my statement as I have made an addition to it. I do so in the light that many comments have been made since originally posting.
memBrain wrote:
The silence you mention can easily be absorbed by the points I outlined from the main body of the Constitution. I also happen to believe that there must be a minimum wage applied, or else you may end up with people being paid less than they're worth (from a living wage perspective) or even not being paid at all (economic s***ery). This is one are that it appears that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
With respect to a standing military, what I'd like to see is a consolidation of our forces thusly:
All branches of the services that have forces abroad will be consolidated with the Navy to establish our Expeditionary Force (EF). This force will remain as it stands as an all volunteer service, and in compliance with the Constitution as fulfilling the requirement of a standing Navy.
All remaining forces throughout the United States and it's territories will be consolidated as the Defense Force (DF). Any position requiring a term of enlistment longer than two years must be filled by a member of the EF. All other positions will be filled by m*****a by demand. Enrollment in the DF will be mandatory of all persons coming of age barring disqualifying mental or physical defect. During the initial period of enlistment, each person will be issued a weapon suitable to their training and the needs of the DF. These weapons will be assigned for the term of their lifetime, barring later disqualification for physical, mental, or moral (such as committing a crime, etc.) reasons. When not actively enlisted with the DF, these people will constitute the m*****a as defined by the Constitution.
Only qualified persons of the m*****a not actively participating in the DF may apply for membership with the EF based on the needs of the EF.
The following is an extension of the overhaul with respect of the military, but is more of an overhaul of our civil service system.
All persons being disqualified from participation with the DF will instead serve two years, upon coming of age, in an appropriate position within the Civil Services (CS). Employment within the CS may be voluntary with reception of civil service credits in lieu of payment which may be applied to government programs receiving said credits. Permanent employment with the CS may be sought at the need of the CS, and only for positions requiring continuity for greater than two consecutive years. All other positions are to be filled by volunteers. This is for all governmental offices.
The purpose of the Civil Service Credit system is to replace our existing welfare entitlement system. Credits can be redeemed for things like food stamps, health care, etc...The point being here that they are earned. This also resolves any problems arising from an excessively bloated bureaucracy as the majority of the people serving are either volunteers, or those serving a mandatory two year term of service when called to perform civic duty.
All terms of duty (two year) are by lottery based on the needs of the CS and DF respectively. All persons serving a term of two years are removed from the lottery for a period of ten years upon completion of service. The only exception being activation for service in the DF during a time of war.
All mandatory two year service periods will be paid a salary based on the national average income, plus CS Credits to cover any loss of income due to se******n for service. Persons leaving their occupation in order to meet their obligation of mandatory service shall have the right to resume their occupation with all appropriate increases they would have earned during their absence.
These changes (IMO) will go a long way to eliminating much of our present debt, and government bloat.
The silence you mention can easily be absorbed by ... (
show quote)
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
Voice of Reason wrote:
I think you're all missing the point. The concept behind a minimum wage of $22/hr isn't about a living wage or the ability to support a family, that is all smokescreen.
It is simply another effort of the progressive l*****ts to implement "social justice" wherein all workers are paid the same, regardless of sk**l, job, capability, education, performance or any other criteria. In the l*****t socialist utopia all workers earn barely enough to survive while the majority of the proceeds of their labor are concentrated among the ruling elite who steal it at gunpoint.
I think you're all missing the point. The concept ... (
show quote)
Much of what you say here is largely true. However, I disagree that it is evidence that there is no need for a "wage floor".
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
I do not share your misgivings. S***ery is outlawed. Working for zero compensation is s***ery. S***ery can only be accomplished by the means of coercive force. How do you define the term "living wage?" How do you determine whether or not someone is underpaid? Do you have a workable standard? In what context would such a standard be applicable?
Living wage is simple. Enough money to keep you fed, keep you clothed, and give you shelter. Please note that I do not specifically define those terms as they are dependent on local economies.
As for a workable standard, yes, I have one. Take my previously mentioned minimum wage system, and add an adjustment for local cost of living.
Edit: I suppose I should add to living wage t***sportation (for work) and communication (also largely for work).
memBrain wrote:
Living wage is simple. Enough money to keep you fed, keep you clothed, and give you shelter. Please note that I do not specifically define those terms as they are dependent on local economies.
As for a workable standard, yes, I have one. Take my previously mentioned minimum wage system, and add an adjustment for local cost of living.
Edit: I suppose I should add to living wage t***sportation (for work) and communication (also largely for work).
How well fed? How well clothed? How substantial would my shelter be? Would it have electrical power and running water, or would it have an outhouse with no running and no electricity? What kind of t***sportation? Would I have a car of my own, or would I be required to use mass t***sit and walk?
Can you see what I am driving at here? It is very difficult to know what a living wage is, let alone knowing what the standard minimums should be. Someone must make all of these decisions before a "minimum" wage can be established.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
How well fed? How well clothed? How substantial would my shelter be? Would it have electrical power and running water, or would it have an outhouse with no running and no electricity? What kind of t***sportation? Would I have a car of my own, or would I be required to use mass t***sit and walk?
Can you see what I am driving at here? It is very difficult to know what a living wage is, let alone knowing what the standard minimums should be. Someone must make all of these decisions before a "minimum" wage can be established.
How well fed? How well clothed? How substantial wo... (
show quote)
Survival level at worst. With all the standard amenities available to society. You know? The things that keep social interactions "nice". Things like soap and toilet paper. You really are a nit-pick you know.
memBrain wrote:
Survival level at worst. With all the standard amenities available to society. You know? The things that keep social interactions "nice". Things like soap and toilet paper. You really are a nit-pick you know.
When you propose to write legislation that is going to have an affect on millions of lives, being nit-picky is a virtue, not a vice. What do you mean by standard amenities? That could quickly grow into huge list.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.