We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. -Davy Crockett
"If businesses can pay what they want, why do 90-95% of today's workers in the U.S. make more than the minimum wage? The answer: supply and demand applies to employees as well as products. If a business doesn't pay a person what he or she is worth, they go to a new employer or start their own business. In a truly free-market/libertarian economy, such moves will be much easier than they are today.
Minimum wage laws actually destroy entry-level positions for the unskilled. Black economist Walter Williams believes that the minimum wage laws are the single most important factor in keeping young blacks out of the job market. The next time Congress considers raising the minimum wage, look in your newspaper for an estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost - potential training jobs for the disadvantaged
Raising the minimum wage will not necessarily result in lost jobs. The number of salaried employees is not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration. There are three areas where the added cost may show up: (1) Revenues; (2) Expenditures: and (3) Profits.
If a company decides to take the extra money from expenditures, that may result in lost jobs, since employees are paid a set number of dollars. It also may result in inferior products, using cheaper parts/ingredients/whatever.
If a company decides to take the extra money out of profits, that may result in lower salaries for higher-level employees.
However, the third option, taking the extra money from revenues is something that I never see discussed. Specifically, that would result in raising prices. If the inflation is large enough, *the value of the new minimum wage is decreased*. What this means is that at some point in the future, the wage will have to be raised yet again, resulting in more inflation...
Nobel Laureate James Buchanan once remarked, "No self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics... Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries."
However, here in the US, the real point of things is that no where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does it authorize the Dept of Labor, or the fed to set wages.
There are instances of short-term homelessness. Someone got fired, lost their house, that sort of thing. But within a matter of months they should be back in the right direction. These situations are pretty rare. Anyone in the US can find a job if they are serious and determined.
The majority of American homelessness is caused by mental illness, or drug/chemical addiction.
I volunteered in a homeless shelter for 12 years, trust me I know.
Well, he is a US citizen, and I think that a large portion of his wealth was generated in the US. I see no problem with him attempting to advance his society.
Let me explain this with a very realistic hypothetical situation. Let's say that Gates and Buffet give all of their money to Chinese research and their growing technology/infrastructure. Either in terms of investments or grants, or just flat out donations.
Who then has the advantage in some sectors? The Chinese are rising up economically speaking, and giving them even more of a boost could potentially harm the US economy and ultimately its people.
Unfortunately too often times donations to third-world countries simply go into the hands of the thugs who happen to be running them. This includes anything from food to medical supplies to outright cash. The dictators/leaders use these donations as a tool to manipulate their populace. In other words, "only people who support me will get medical supplies" or even worse yet "only those of a particular tribe, race, ethnicity will get the food" or something to that effect.
Besides, if the country was free and the people were not under the gun, they probably would not be as impoverished (China is starting to become an exception).
So the question becomes, who do we want to come out ahead, our own people, or the Chinese who are wanting to crush us like a grape in 20 years?
Unfortunately too often times donations to third-world countries simply go into the hands of the thugs who happen to be running them. This includes anything from food to medical supplies to outright cash. The dictators/leaders use these donations as a tool to manipulate their populace. In other words, "only people who support me will get medical supplies" or even worse yet "only those of a particular tribe, race, ethnicity will get the food" or something to that effect.
Besides, if the country was free and the people were not under the gun, they probably would not be as impoverished.
But there is nothing wrong with the donors giving grants for research or technological development in the US or any other developed country. Think of Richard Branson. What if he were actually able to get commercial flights into space? Do you think that is a waste? What about those who donate to the X-Prize? Or those that donate to the encryption brute-force contests? Or Henry Flagler spending millions (billions at the time) to run a railway down into Florida? What about the European royalty a few hundred years ago who bankrolled some guys named Columbus, Cortez, Pizzaro, and Ponce de Leon? Or what about those that give to SETI? Or donations to the diabetic association? Or the lukemia research foundation? Perhaps they might develop a cure with some of those funds? What about giving to the research of $100 laptops? I could go on and on.
Granted not every one's motives in some of the above situations were "pure at heart", but nevertheless, due to large sums of money being utilized great advances and development were able to take place.
No, Malaria research is an admirable goal. I have no problem with that and I don't think that specific action would cause more harm than good.
Investing in business propositions is ok. Who was harmed by places like pets.com and etoys? It looks to me like only the investors who failed to see a return. I am advocating that these billionaires should give grants to research and other projects that are unable to usually get funding.
Well, it's their money, they are free to give it to whomever they wish, unless of course we are at war and they support an enemy (think terrorist funding, sending money to the Nazis in WWII, or to the Russians in the Cold War etc). Outside of that, who am I to tell them who they can and can't give their money to? But I do have an opinion!
Personally, if it were me, I'd feel obligated to help out my own people and my own country, especially since a large portion of that money was earned here domestically. Not to mention the fact that the US is losing its global edge in several specific sectors. Think of Richard Branson and his aerospace ideas. But again, that's just me and my opinion.
The irony of this is that as I type this I am listening to an unlawful copy of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straights. I didn't even plan that on purpose.;-)
Well, he is a US citizen, and I think that a large portion of his wealth was generated in the US. I see no problem with him attempting to advance his society.
And when I said investing in education, I didn't necessarily mean government schools, but specific research institutions, think tanks, etc.
I can understand the beef with people taking viagra and not needing it, but laser eye surgery absolutely improves the quality of life. What's wrong with that? And if we can create anything more efficiently, Tivos, automobiles, aircraft, refrigerators, etc, why would that be a bad thing?
Improving the quality of life happens in a free market with innovative technology (which of course in turn creates wealth).
Yes, I am a 24 year old Eagle Scout. If it were not for Scouts I would've spent a good portion of my teenage years in my room on my computer. Scouting forced me to get out beyond my little world and interact with other people in person and also interact with nature.
In fact, after I graduated from college last year I spent 2 months working as a water ski instructor at a BSA camp in Florida. It was great. A lot of the adult leaders were very interesting people. I met doctors, attorneys, 20 million dollar hedge fund managers, industrial engineers, pro musicians, archeticts, a Cuban exile who graduated from Harvard, etc. Not to mention that I was an adult among a mostly youth staff, and I had a single week at a time to take boys who had never been on skis before, and get them doing slalom runs by the end of the week.
Although I am not currently involved in Scouting, I will be again one day when (if) I ever have a son of age. I am thinking of joining a college/adult church group to get some female interaction. I do agree that the computer can be a detriment to social networking, but on the other hand, in some respects it can be a boost.
When I worked at Blockbuster (video) during my last 2 years at college I noticed on our computers one day an option about fingerprinting. When I asked the manager he told me the software had been updated, and we were getting ready to accept payment but fingerptint.
Essentially when someone would come in and set up the account they would have the option of giving their fingerprint on the machine and tieing their credit card to it. That way, when they came into the store the next time they wouldn't have to bring ID, membership card, or a method of payment with them.
As far as I know the hardware of this hasn't been distributed to stores, but the software is indeed setup and ready to go.
I am all for charity (I volunteered at a homeless shelter once a month for years), but I also think that money could go to research and legit startups even if the foundation distributing that money was non-profit.
Too often times (but not always) a free handout does more harm than good. It's that old saying "give someone a fish, they eat today, teach someone to fish they eat for life..."
With that amount of money I think a LOT of groudbreaking research could take place in the medical fields, the tech sector, and even in the aerospace industry. Also reinvesting it in American business/education can give us a heads up over the up and coming Chinese.
I agree with that, but telling American businesses who they can and can't hire* is NOT a function of the federal government and they should not be involved in this.
...are not a function of the federal government. They are no where listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. And according to the 10th Amendment it is within the power of the states.
The ONLY thing Congress has to do with this is on the immigration side: "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4a).
Dealing with hiring practices is not something the federal government should be involved in.
I actually use MySpace to keep in touch with friends I met at camp and fellow counselors.
I am an Eagle Scout and after graduating from college last May I decided to serve as a counselor at my BSA camp in Florida as a water ski instructor (cush job, right?). It was the most fun I had ever had in my life. Gettin paid to drive a power boat around a lake.
They had a computer room setup for staff and adult leaders with a satellite downlink and phoneline for the uplink. The camp is very remote and no chance of DSL or cable. Because I work in the real world now and have a real job I won't get the chance to work there again this year although I want to soo badly.
At least using MySpace I can keep up with the people I met at camp. http://camplanoche.com/ is the place.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone tell me how this is any of the business of Congress?
i on.articlei.html#section8
i on.billofrights.html#amendmentx
According to Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution this is NOT a function of the US Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
And according to the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Are those eyes, or is it cold in here?
...was all of the sphincters in the NSA and KGB tightening up!
"so it's like a place about lifestyle, culture, music, art, and sex. Just without the lifestyle, culture, music, and art!"
Shit, I wish my college had something like that!
Do you mean this:
We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
-Davy Crockett
...nevermind.
But seriously, in Soviet Russia, simulator blows you!
"If businesses can pay what they want, why do 90-95% of today's workers in the U.S. make more than the minimum wage? The answer: supply and demand applies to employees as well as products. If a business doesn't pay a person what he or she is worth, they go to a new employer or start their own business. In a truly free-market/libertarian economy, such moves will be much easier than they are today.
. php?Category=51&PHPSESSID=4b7544a3a3eba804e1f98b23 4672982b
Minimum wage laws actually destroy entry-level positions for the unskilled. Black economist Walter Williams believes that the minimum wage laws are the single most important factor in keeping young blacks out of the job market. The next time Congress considers raising the minimum wage, look in your newspaper for an estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost - potential training jobs for the disadvantaged
Raising the minimum wage will not necessarily result in lost jobs. The number of salaried employees is not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration. There are three areas where the added cost may show up: (1) Revenues; (2) Expenditures: and (3) Profits.
If a company decides to take the extra money from expenditures, that may result in lost jobs, since employees are paid a set number of dollars. It also may result in inferior products, using cheaper parts/ingredients/whatever.
If a company decides to take the extra money out of profits, that may result in lower salaries for higher-level employees.
However, the third option, taking the extra money from revenues is something that I never see discussed. Specifically, that would result in raising prices. If the inflation is large enough, *the value of the new minimum wage is decreased*. What this means is that at some point in the future, the wage will have to be raised yet again, resulting in more inflation...
Nobel Laureate James Buchanan once remarked, "No self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics... Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries."
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list
However, here in the US, the real point of things is that no where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does it authorize the Dept of Labor, or the fed to set wages.
My dad would keep MREs in the car and would simply ask them if they wanted a MRE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRE
There are instances of short-term homelessness. Someone got fired, lost their house, that sort of thing. But within a matter of months they should be back in the right direction. These situations are pretty rare. Anyone in the US can find a job if they are serious and determined.
The majority of American homelessness is caused by mental illness, or drug/chemical addiction.
I volunteered in a homeless shelter for 12 years, trust me I know.
Can you tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution that the federal government is responsible for the elderly?
My own people?
Well, he is a US citizen, and I think that a large portion of his wealth was generated in the US. I see no problem with him attempting to advance his society.
Let me explain this with a very realistic hypothetical situation. Let's say that Gates and Buffet give all of their money to Chinese research and their growing technology/infrastructure. Either in terms of investments or grants, or just flat out donations.
Who then has the advantage in some sectors? The Chinese are rising up economically speaking, and giving them even more of a boost could potentially harm the US economy and ultimately its people.
Unfortunately too often times donations to third-world countries simply go into the hands of the thugs who happen to be running them. This includes anything from food to medical supplies to outright cash. The dictators/leaders use these donations as a tool to manipulate their populace. In other words, "only people who support me will get medical supplies" or even worse yet "only those of a particular tribe, race, ethnicity will get the food" or something to that effect.
Besides, if the country was free and the people were not under the gun, they probably would not be as impoverished (China is starting to become an exception).
So the question becomes, who do we want to come out ahead, our own people, or the Chinese who are wanting to crush us like a grape in 20 years?
Everything in life is a competition.
Unfortunately too often times donations to third-world countries simply go into the hands of the thugs who happen to be running them. This includes anything from food to medical supplies to outright cash. The dictators/leaders use these donations as a tool to manipulate their populace. In other words, "only people who support me will get medical supplies" or even worse yet "only those of a particular tribe, race, ethnicity will get the food" or something to that effect.
Besides, if the country was free and the people were not under the gun, they probably would not be as impoverished.
But there is nothing wrong with the donors giving grants for research or technological development in the US or any other developed country. Think of Richard Branson. What if he were actually able to get commercial flights into space? Do you think that is a waste? What about those who donate to the X-Prize? Or those that donate to the encryption brute-force contests? Or Henry Flagler spending millions (billions at the time) to run a railway down into Florida? What about the European royalty a few hundred years ago who bankrolled some guys named Columbus, Cortez, Pizzaro, and Ponce de Leon? Or what about those that give to SETI? Or donations to the diabetic association? Or the lukemia research foundation? Perhaps they might develop a cure with some of those funds? What about giving to the research of $100 laptops? I could go on and on.
Granted not every one's motives in some of the above situations were "pure at heart", but nevertheless, due to large sums of money being utilized great advances and development were able to take place.
No, Malaria research is an admirable goal. I have no problem with that and I don't think that specific action would cause more harm than good.
Investing in business propositions is ok. Who was harmed by places like pets.com and etoys? It looks to me like only the investors who failed to see a return. I am advocating that these billionaires should give grants to research and other projects that are unable to usually get funding.
Well, it's their money, they are free to give it to whomever they wish, unless of course we are at war and they support an enemy (think terrorist funding, sending money to the Nazis in WWII, or to the Russians in the Cold War etc). Outside of that, who am I to tell them who they can and can't give their money to? But I do have an opinion!
;-)
Personally, if it were me, I'd feel obligated to help out my own people and my own country, especially since a large portion of that money was earned here domestically. Not to mention the fact that the US is losing its global edge in several specific sectors. Think of Richard Branson and his aerospace ideas. But again, that's just me and my opinion.
The irony of this is that as I type this I am listening to an unlawful copy of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straights. I didn't even plan that on purpose.
Well, he is a US citizen, and I think that a large portion of his wealth was generated in the US. I see no problem with him attempting to advance his society.
And when I said investing in education, I didn't necessarily mean government schools, but specific research institutions, think tanks, etc.
I can understand the beef with people taking viagra and not needing it, but laser eye surgery absolutely improves the quality of life. What's wrong with that? And if we can create anything more efficiently, Tivos, automobiles, aircraft, refrigerators, etc, why would that be a bad thing?
Improving the quality of life happens in a free market with innovative technology (which of course in turn creates wealth).
Yes, I am a 24 year old Eagle Scout. If it were not for Scouts I would've spent a good portion of my teenage years in my room on my computer. Scouting forced me to get out beyond my little world and interact with other people in person and also interact with nature.
In fact, after I graduated from college last year I spent 2 months working as a water ski instructor at a BSA camp in Florida. It was great. A lot of the adult leaders were very interesting people. I met doctors, attorneys, 20 million dollar hedge fund managers, industrial engineers, pro musicians, archeticts, a Cuban exile who graduated from Harvard, etc. Not to mention that I was an adult among a mostly youth staff, and I had a single week at a time to take boys who had never been on skis before, and get them doing slalom runs by the end of the week.
Although I am not currently involved in Scouting, I will be again one day when (if) I ever have a son of age. I am thinking of joining a college/adult church group to get some female interaction. I do agree that the computer can be a detriment to social networking, but on the other hand, in some respects it can be a boost.
...network befriends you!
When I worked at Blockbuster (video) during my last 2 years at college I noticed on our computers one day an option about fingerprinting. When I asked the manager he told me the software had been updated, and we were getting ready to accept payment but fingerptint.
Essentially when someone would come in and set up the account they would have the option of giving their fingerprint on the machine and tieing their credit card to it. That way, when they came into the store the next time they wouldn't have to bring ID, membership card, or a method of payment with them.
As far as I know the hardware of this hasn't been distributed to stores, but the software is indeed setup and ready to go.
Girlfriend?
You must be new here...
I am all for charity (I volunteered at a homeless shelter once a month for years), but I also think that money could go to research and legit startups even if the foundation distributing that money was non-profit.
Too often times (but not always) a free handout does more harm than good. It's that old saying "give someone a fish, they eat today, teach someone to fish they eat for life..."
With that amount of money I think a LOT of groudbreaking research could take place in the medical fields, the tech sector, and even in the aerospace industry. Also reinvesting it in American business/education can give us a heads up over the up and coming Chinese.
Convoluted tax system!
I agree with that, but telling American businesses who they can and can't hire* is NOT a function of the federal government and they should not be involved in this.
*as long as the worker is here legally
...are not a function of the federal government. They are no where listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. And according to the 10th Amendment it is within the power of the states.
The ONLY thing Congress has to do with this is on the immigration side: "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4a).
Dealing with hiring practices is not something the federal government should be involved in.
I actually use MySpace to keep in touch with friends I met at camp and fellow counselors.
I am an Eagle Scout and after graduating from college last May I decided to serve as a counselor at my BSA camp in Florida as a water ski instructor (cush job, right?). It was the most fun I had ever had in my life. Gettin paid to drive a power boat around a lake.
They had a computer room setup for staff and adult leaders with a satellite downlink and phoneline for the uplink. The camp is very remote and no chance of DSL or cable. Because I work in the real world now and have a real job I won't get the chance to work there again this year although I want to soo badly.
At least using MySpace I can keep up with the people I met at camp. http://camplanoche.com/ is the place.
... just a bunch of hot air!