U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2019, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,547 posts, read 19,520,617 times
Reputation: 21168

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor View Post
I don't associate with politicians.
Then you're left to come here and whine about taxes.
Good job.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2019, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,203 posts, read 14,393,338 times
Reputation: 16417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, regarding your post #24:
Could you expand upon these three sentences of your response?

How or why is the stated opinion false?
Because you made it up.

You've never read the meeting minutes of the Committee of Detail, because you don't even know what the Committee of Detail is. You've never read the letters those men wrote to other members of the Convention and to other interested parties and you've never read their diaries.

These...

1) customs and revenues
2) maritime law and navigation
3) mercantile aspect
4) with foreign nations and among the several States
5) 'Not Commerce' in 1787

...are the actual titles of headings in their meeting minutes, although "maritime law and navigation" actually says "maritime and navigation aspect" (after I re-examined the minutes).

Those are the reasons the Commerce Clause exists, not the false reason you made up.

And, since you aren't that smart, you obviously got your false nonsense from another website, but lack the integrity to admit that.

You have not stated an opinion, you've presented a false belief.

An opinion differs from a belief in that an opinion is a fact-based conclusion:

1) Fact: Motel Room 222 exists
2) Fact: Joe was murdered in Room 222
2) Fact: Bob's fingerprints were found in Room 222

Fact-based conclusion: Suspect Bob was present in Room 222 at some point prior to the murder, although it cannot be established that Bob was present at the time of the murder.

That is a rendered opinion.

What you presented to foist your nonsense on people is a false belief:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
The constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages
No member of the Constitutional Convention ever made any statements to that effect.

You will never find one diary entry or one letter by any member of the Convention or a set of meeting minutes from any of the committees that makes those claims.

The Committee of Detail was the committee that defined the Commerce Clause. The fact that you're totally ignorant of that speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Contrary to your blatantly false claims, delegates from wealthier States did not "agree to sacrifice their own advantage."

You just made that up.

These are the actual headings written in the minutes of the Committee of Detail as they actually appear with the capitalization and punctuation as used:

1) The Customs and Revenues Aspect
2) The Maritime and Navigation Aspect
3) The Mercantile Aspect
4) With Foreign Nations, and Among The Several States
5) "Not-Commerce" in 1787

Yes, it really says "'Not-Commerce' in 1787."

Those are the reasons you have a Commerce Clause.

They never once discussed States deliberately harming other States and they never once discuss States valiantly surrendering their own advantage.

That you lied and made it up is supported further by this phrase: "...determined a federal law was necessary..."

The Constitution is not "federal law."

Federal law is separate and apart from the Constitution.

The Constitution can never be judicially reviewed. Federal law can be judicially reviewed and if found to conflict with the Constitution, it is rescinded.

Only a novice who was clueless would make a bone-headed error like that.

The Constitutional Convention had no authority to enact any federal laws. They only had the authority to draft a constitution.

Only a novice who was clueless would make a idiotic error like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
How did you reach the conclusion “then employers would pay the minimum wage and only the minimum wage and no higher wages”?
Why don't employers pay only the minimum wage?

There's a reason why employers pay more than the minimum wage.

There's a reason why my employers pay me $750/hour and not $7.25/hour, although sometimes I will agree to a lesser fees like $350/hour or even $250/hour.

Let us know when you figure out why employers pay more than the minimum wage.

Would you like a hint?

It's called "Supply & Demand."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
What do you mean by the phrase “review of Social Security wages”, and what claim would it “debunk”?
How can you be an economist and not know what economic resources are available?

Ah, because you don't really know what you're talking about.

Also, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that many people are perfectly happy getting paid the minimum wage.

Because if they weren't happy, then they'd take steps to improve their lot.

And, too, there are people who get welfare benefits and they love minimum wage because minimum wage allows them to keep their welfare benefits. Those people actually quit jobs if they get a pay raise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, I'm aware of some peoples' ignorance.
I would be more impressed if you were aware of your own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
They're unaware that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods indicate we've purchased more products than we've produced.
And everyone's Standard of Living has increased as a result, which is why they're not complaining.

You just can't accept the fact that trade increases the Standard of Living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
USA's trade deficits dragging upon our GDP,...
Wrong.

Trade increases your GDP.

A $500 Billion trade deficit generates $3.5 TRILLION in GDP or maybe $4.5 TRILLION in GDP or $6.5 TRILLION in GDP or maybe even $8.5 TRILLION in GDP

If it generates $8,5 TRILLION in GDP then subtracting the trade deficit, you are still +$8 TRILLION to the good.

If you didn't have a $500 Billion trade deficit, that $8 TRILLION in GDP would evaporate, so instead of $17 TRILLION total you'd have $9 TRILLION total and be worse off.

You don't have the population to manufacture everything.

To manufacture everything, you'd need a population of 750 Million to 850 Million in order to have enough labor to manufacture everything.

So, how do you get your population from 320 Million to 750 Million?

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that importing 400 Million to 500 Million people from other countries would have a political and social impact that might be negative.

For one thing, immigrants would out-number US Citizens.

You can pay a person $10/hour to make toasters or you can off-shore toasters to China and then import them and pay that person $35/hour to make high-tech equipment.

Why would you not want that?

What do you have against workers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,203 posts, read 14,393,338 times
Reputation: 16417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I could get behind federal minimum wage if they put some sort of cost of living adjustment in it.
That would be self-defeating and you'd only succeed in punishing yourself and others.

When Monetary Inflation exists, all wages/salaries rise, just as all prices of all goods and services rise.

When Demand-pull Inflation exists, prices rise due to excessive consumption or over-use of goods and services, but wages/salaries do not rise, unless demand for a particular job skill-set causes wages to rise.

If you tie minimum wage to COLA, then all you do is encourage and enable excessive consumption or over-use of goods and services, which causes prices to rise even higher.

Eventually, prices rise to a point where you can't even afford goods and services and ultimately you arrive at "demand destruction."

It's a game you cannot win, and that's by design, because that's how the Laws of Economics work.

Those people need to seek substitutes.

If you cannot afford Luis Vitton, the start shopping at Macy's and if you can't afford that, then start shopping at Kohl's and if you can't afford that, then you start shopping at Wal-Mart and if you can't afford that, then start shopping at the Salvation Army thrift store where you can buy Louis Vitton for $2.

Same with housing. If you can't afford it, then move outside the "kill-zone" or relocate to another place entirely, or live with your parents, siblings or grand-parents or share housing with a similarly situated family.

You can never violate the Laws of Economics without suffering some penalty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2019, 09:24 PM
 
1,397 posts, read 716,807 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I could get behind federal minimum wage if they put some sort of cost of living adjustment in it. ...
Mathguy & Mircea, Social Security retirement benefits retain their purchasing power by annual COLA adjustments. It's been working.

HR 528, the House's “Raise the Wage” bill is annually pegged to the proportional increase of the nation's median wage rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 05:18 AM
 
37,801 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
My issue is tRump and his GOP bootlickers.

I address it every time I enter the voting booth. Some of that issue was successfully addressed last November. It'll get some attention again in a little over 14 months.

Interesting that you felt compelled to respond with an empty "nyah-nyah."

Time to Make America Smart Again.

"My issue is tRump and his GOP bootlickers." You must live miserable life worrying so much about others.


Makes you a hypocrite. You tell OTHERS to contact their elected representative and you DON'T!


Quote:
"Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Thanks for sharing.

Contact your congressman and senators.

Demand action.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,547 posts, read 19,520,617 times
Reputation: 21168
Talking Still out of ammo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"My issue is tRump and his GOP bootlickers." You must live miserable life worrying so much about others.


Makes you a hypocrite. You tell OTHERS to contact their elected representative and you DON'T!


Quote:
"Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Thanks for sharing.

Contact your congressman and senators.

Demand action.?
I come here to discuss politics and politicians.

Angry threatened Trumplings come here to post about ME.

Carry on.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 06:56 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,455 posts, read 14,183,817 times
Reputation: 6570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
The Federal Minimum Wage Rate.

The federal minimum wage rate is a minimum rate. States may, and many have enacted a higher minimum within their own jurisdiction.

Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
The constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages. Without such compromises, the constitution would not have been ratified and our nation might not have survived to this day. That compromise is no less needed now, as it was in 1787.

If there's no definite legally enforced minimum wage rate, the effective minimum rate's an indefinite theoretical market-determined rate that may and likely will, (in the absence of labor shortages), too often race down to an “extremely poor bottom”.

the constitution did NOT set a min wage law.... FDR did (1938)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
...is way too low.

And Pubs want to keep it there.

After all, they're all about cheap labor and sending your job to China.

The party of corporate welfare.

what makes you think that the MINIMUM is too low


what makes you think wages have been stagnant




uhm

the median household yearly income 1970......$7600 …………..in todays (inflation )dollars ...$49,792.02

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2018


yet:
the median household yearly income 2018......$62,770.... clearly not any type of stagnation as it has surpassed inflation (cost of living or CPI)




even the min wage has kept up with inflation
https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
min wage at start (oct 1938).. $0.25........ in todays dollars (2018) $4.48

min wage 1945....................$0.40..........in todays dollars .......... $5.61

min wage 1984...................$3.35.........in todays dollars...........$8.08

min wage 1993...................$4.25.........in todays dollars...........$7.42

min wage 1999...................$5.15.........in todays dollars...........$7.80
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/





its the globalist liberals that sent all the jobs to china, not the repugs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 06:58 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,455 posts, read 14,183,817 times
Reputation: 6570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mathguy & Mircea, Social Security retirement benefits retain their purchasing power by annual COLA adjustments. It's been working.

HR 528, the House's “Raise the Wage” bill is annually pegged to the proportional increase of the nation's median wage rate.
thousands of small businesses are facing situations like this:


Quote:





here is an example of what will happen with this 'raising'

minimum wage is for UNSKILLED currently at 7.20

I pay my UNSKILLED laborers (that clean the shop) over $9 an hour, the min wage is $7.2

an example:

I run a maintenance shop
I have a shop foreman...$24/hr
I have 3 mechanics.......$22/hr
I have a parts manager...$22/hr
I have 2 mechanic helpers...$14
I have 2 parts workers/drivers...$12
I have 2 labors (to clear the shop)....$9 (2 over min)

minimum wage is $7.2

the 'government' raises the minimum wage to 15

now I HAVE to increase the laborers wage to AT LEAST 15.. and he will WANT $17 (2 over min)....but If I give the "unskilled" laborer $17 then the driver (must maintain a clean license) will want more (hey boss, I was making $3 more than the unskilled guy) ...as so on, and so on...

either that or you will make what was 'above' min wage skilled worker to being min wage workers

thus RAISING THE COSTS of my SERVICE that I provide to the society.....
I would to raise salaries on mech helpers, drivers, and laborers...not to mention the actual SKILLED workers....meanwhile the business will end up failing, because it not is too costly to stay in business



so either costs will go up....or people will get laid-off......because as a small shop owner I cant afford to give any more than I am giving


this is just one example of what will happen, if we try raising the min wage anymore



as to raising it to a federal 15/hr remember this about raising a min wage and how it effect/affect other things
and let's not forget the COST of raising it to 15...those workers are NOT going to see much of a raise....

it also increases the taxes on EVERYONE who fell in that zone
increase of income taxes
increase of payroll taxes
loss/reduction of ACA/Medicaid health care subsidies
increase cost of health premiums
increase of state income taxes (if any)
loss/reduction of social benefits such as welfare/food stamps
increase on the prices of EVERYTHING


so possibly half of that raise magically disappears into the pockets of the politicians


the problem with all the fools shouting raise the min wage, is they don't see the big picture
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 07:51 AM
 
52,441 posts, read 42,170,600 times
Reputation: 32724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mathguy & Mircea, Social Security retirement benefits retain their purchasing power by annual COLA adjustments. It's been working.

HR 528, the House's “Raise the Wage” bill is annually pegged to the proportional increase of the nation's median wage rate.
I didn't word my post well, I'm talking about a geographic adjustment meaning that a national federal wage sufficient for NYC is grossly excessive for small town Iowa. I believe that's possibly intentional just to create a wedge issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,547 posts, read 19,520,617 times
Reputation: 21168
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post

what makes you think that the MINIMUM is too low
Its magnitude.

Quote:
its the globalist liberals that sent all the jobs to china, not the repugs
pull-EEZ!

It's the corporatists desperate to exploit the wage-slave Red Chinese labor force that put those jobs in China, in order to avoid paying American workers.

And the so-called "American" corporations that did so agreed to China's terms. Now, they're whining about it.

Sad...

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top