They wanted to uphold the expansion of Federal power. They used the Commerce clause as a justification to pretend the Constitution allows this Federal power. When you care about power more than you care about anything else, you can always find a justification to convince yourself you're right to have power. Given this reasoning, any basis can be a "sound Constitutional basis".
Watchman seems very overrated. Since when is "everyone just plays along and pretends nothing happened" a good ending? The movie was better because the behavior of the characters and the rest of the world was less inexplicably weird. If someone seems to be acting strangely, the readers deserve an explanation other than "the writer wrote it that way".
Um.. They died centuries ago. Congrats on keeping up with the news.
You may also be interested to hear that Henry Tudor is no longer married to Anne Boleyn. And a "New World" has been discovered across the Atlantic Ocean. Stay tuned to hear whether that place turns out to be interesting.
Can we get cheaper energy? Environmentalists say: "We can get it cleaner."
... and, for the guys making $24,000 a year who are trying to find a way to pay their bills and raise their families, environmentalists say "Let them eat cake!"
I don't support GE or any of the rest of Obama's corporate cronies. GE is among the worst of them. When GE uses their special relationship with the Obama regime to get subsidy checks and bank bailouts (even though their GE Capital arm didn't technically qualify as a bank -- but hey, playing by the rules is for the little people) it's essentially stealing. When GE uses their NBC networks as a propaganda outlet for Obama, it's corrupt. GE is acting as a criminal organization would act. If they figured out how to do it without technically breaking any laws, that's sad -- in addition to it being despicable.
We need to shrink government so companies like GE can't use government power against the rest of us. And we need to eliminate every subsidy so companies like GE have to earn their money by serving customers, not have it stolen from taxpayers and handed over as a "thank you" gift for the campaign cash and the favorable NBC news coverage.
But if they someday go back to earning their money honestly, I don't want the government stealing (taxing) it from them. Because stealing is wrong. Low levels of taxation to support a few essential services is OK. Looting them to finance government giveaways isn't.
Got it, you're one of those "I got mine, sucks to be you, now go fuck off!" types. No sense trying to have a reasonable conversation anymore.
I'm one of those "stealing is wrong" types. So yeah, since your only ideas are stealing and traveling backward in time, there's not much to talk about.
* Increase average wages to better keep pace with the inflation of housing costs. * Set a maximum prices for homes to bring them down into the realm of attainability regardless of income level. * Require builders to set aside 20-40% of the homes / units in a condo for low income earners. * Encourage renters to base rents on a proportion of the applicants income and provide tax incentives to make up the difference in unit cost. * Spend the money spent on invading a country for their oil and give everyone a modest 3 bedroom home or condo.
Summary: - Steal money from employers. - Steal money from current home owners - Steal money from builders - Steal money from rental property owners - Steal money from a paranoid fantasy world that even the true believers gave up on in 2005. Create land from nowhere and build magic condos on it.
Will the people in power do it, no way in hell.
We agree on this.
I don't agree with everything you did to my list, but you kept the important part: "No we can't."
I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying that people who are as smart and reliable as your average high school junior should get paid a lot?
Are you saying that small companies making niche products can easily hire all unemployed people at high wages?
I think US companies can definitely manufacture products here and pay a pretty good (but not great) wage. We should be making it easier for US companies to do it profitably by eliminating government roadblocks.
But so many people (including many of the loudest on Slashdot) hate US companies and won't support anything that might help them, even (especially?) if they want to employ manufacturing workers here.
Huge tariffs is one way, and not the only way, to change that reality.
Global depression and war are only two of the problems with your plan.
Luckily, it won't happen because we won't be raising huge tariffs to protect low skilled workers. Low skilled workers lack the numbers, the unanimity, the money, and the will to become politically powerful enough to get this done. It's a fantasy on many different levels.
That sure is a lot of complaining with zero ideas on how to solve anything.
Yours seems to be a common attitude: "No we can't".
Can we build a better factory? Unions say: "No we can't." Can we get cheaper energy? Environmentalists say: "No we can't." Can we cut the cost of our insurance? Lawyers say: "No we can't." Can we educate our children? The teachers union says: "No we can't." Can we cut local taxes? The government unions say: "No we can't." Can we cut crime in the neighborhoods? Community organizers say: "No we can't." Can we improve anything? Slashdot says: "No we can't."
If you don't allow low wages, then people will have to choose whether they still want the work done or not.
They don't. They can't compete or make a profit at the higher wage levels. Businesses don't "want" work done. They hire when adding payroll increases profits. At higher wages, that won't be happening much.
If it is important or necessary, they will pay more for the work.
It isn't. And even if it were, they'll outsource it. They'll offshore it. They'll hire independent contractors. Smaller companies that can't get around your artificially high wages will lose out to bigger companies or foreign companies who can.
Entry level is entry level, but forcing labor costs on the bottom up will generally have benefits all around - increased markets, less inequality, etc.
It causes unemployment. All economists agree it causes unemployment, BTW, they only disagree on how much.
We can see the results of your philosophy. It's Detroit.
We should definitely learn from them. For example, all of those countries have lower corporate tax rates than the US.
Lower nominal corporate taxes, but higher revenues from them thanks to fewer tax preferences.
Yes, this is what conservatives in the US have been saying for 30 years. Lower tax rates and a broader tax base nets you more revenue while burdening individual taxpayers less.
We can thank Sweden and Norway for bringing this enlightenment to ears that refused to hear it from Reagan.
If we don't allow low wage jobs, then low skilled people can't get work at all.
Try buying a house in a decent neighborhood on $24K per year...
Yeah, obviously, low skilled people probably can't afford to own a house. A house is a somewhat high value item. If you only have low value skills to offer, you probably can't afford to buy a house.
In 1970 the average US home cost... and the average worker made...
So you're saying a low skilled person should go back in time 40 years? This keeps getting brought up, as if living in the past were some sort of solution. The past is gone.
I'm sure if I went digging for 2011 numbers the disparity for wages vs housing would be even larger.
Or as if complaining about a "disparity" is some sort of solution.
Its unsustainable, particularly with the wage gap increasing, and we as a society better get our act together to ensure we're providing affordable housing in nice neighborhoods so people making that small amount of money can actually afford it...
Got any ideas?
I do. They involve eliminating artificial costs in the US - money that goes to lawyers, union bosses, government red tape, regulations, other government services, etc. We can't afford to keep chasing utopian fantasies.
Do you have any ideas?
otherwise those "Occupy" movements are going to get worse and start getting violent.
And that would solve what? The Occupy movements can't even say what they want without alienating the public. Because they essentially want to receive and/or spend money they didn't earn.
If you re-read my short comment, you may notice that it allows for everyone you mentioned in your comment.
Also, people who refuse to buy health insurance but aren't poor enough to qualify for government-paid health care can buy basic medical treatment just fine. A doctor visit costs $70-$80 or less. They aren't going to buy a heart transplant, but that's not "basic" medical care either.
And people with emergencies get treated in emergency rooms, regardless of whether they can pay.
The original phrase is "so many people cannot afford the most basic medical care". This is plainly false.
Slashdot Mirror
I like this : "economics says". That's excellent.
"Physics says" you're wrong. Fun :)
They wanted to uphold the expansion of Federal power. They used the Commerce clause as a justification to pretend the Constitution allows this Federal power. When you care about power more than you care about anything else, you can always find a justification to convince yourself you're right to have power. Given this reasoning, any basis can be a "sound Constitutional basis".
Watchman seems very overrated. Since when is "everyone just plays along and pretends nothing happened" a good ending? The movie was better because the behavior of the characters and the rest of the world was less inexplicably weird. If someone seems to be acting strangely, the readers deserve an explanation other than "the writer wrote it that way".
It doesn't matter what anyone says. There's no money to go to the moon or anywhere else.
The US can't go to the moon for the same reason Greece and Spain can't go to the moon. Bankrupt countries can't afford ambitious vanity projects.
...note: I am Greek... ...Where do I hide guys???
Inside a giant wooden horse.
Under a giant heap of extra question marks.
Um.. They died centuries ago. Congrats on keeping up with the news.
You may also be interested to hear that Henry Tudor is no longer married to Anne Boleyn. And a "New World" has been discovered across the Atlantic Ocean. Stay tuned to hear whether that place turns out to be interesting.
Can we get cheaper energy? Environmentalists say: "We can get it cleaner."
... and, for the guys making $24,000 a year who are trying to find a way to pay their bills and raise their families, environmentalists say "Let them eat cake!"
I don't support GE or any of the rest of Obama's corporate cronies. GE is among the worst of them. When GE uses their special relationship with the Obama regime to get subsidy checks and bank bailouts (even though their GE Capital arm didn't technically qualify as a bank -- but hey, playing by the rules is for the little people) it's essentially stealing. When GE uses their NBC networks as a propaganda outlet for Obama, it's corrupt. GE is acting as a criminal organization would act. If they figured out how to do it without technically breaking any laws, that's sad -- in addition to it being despicable.
We need to shrink government so companies like GE can't use government power against the rest of us. And we need to eliminate every subsidy so companies like GE have to earn their money by serving customers, not have it stolen from taxpayers and handed over as a "thank you" gift for the campaign cash and the favorable NBC news coverage.
But if they someday go back to earning their money honestly, I don't want the government stealing (taxing) it from them. Because stealing is wrong. Low levels of taxation to support a few essential services is OK. Looting them to finance government giveaways isn't.
Except I don't want anything stolen from anyone.
Funny how people that want to steal can always find some justification or rationalization for it.
Got it, you're one of those "I got mine, sucks to be you, now go fuck off!" types. No sense trying to have a reasonable conversation anymore.
I'm one of those "stealing is wrong" types. So yeah, since your only ideas are stealing and traveling backward in time, there's not much to talk about.
* Increase average wages to better keep pace with the inflation of housing costs.
* Set a maximum prices for homes to bring them down into the realm of attainability regardless of income level.
* Require builders to set aside 20-40% of the homes / units in a condo for low income earners.
* Encourage renters to base rents on a proportion of the applicants income and provide tax incentives to make up the difference in unit cost.
* Spend the money spent on invading a country for their oil and give everyone a modest 3 bedroom home or condo.
Summary:
- Steal money from employers.
- Steal money from current home owners
- Steal money from builders
- Steal money from rental property owners
- Steal money from a paranoid fantasy world that even the true believers gave up on in 2005. Create land from nowhere and build magic condos on it.
Will the people in power do it, no way in hell.
We agree on this.
I don't agree with everything you did to my list, but you kept the important part: "No we can't."
I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying that people who are as smart and reliable as your average high school junior should get paid a lot?
Are you saying that small companies making niche products can easily hire all unemployed people at high wages?
I think US companies can definitely manufacture products here and pay a pretty good (but not great) wage. We should be making it easier for US companies to do it profitably by eliminating government roadblocks.
But so many people (including many of the loudest on Slashdot) hate US companies and won't support anything that might help them, even (especially?) if they want to employ manufacturing workers here.
Huge tariffs is one way, and not the only way, to change that reality.
Global depression and war are only two of the problems with your plan.
Luckily, it won't happen because we won't be raising huge tariffs to protect low skilled workers. Low skilled workers lack the numbers, the unanimity, the money, and the will to become politically powerful enough to get this done. It's a fantasy on many different levels.
That sure is a lot of complaining with zero ideas on how to solve anything.
Yours seems to be a common attitude: "No we can't".
Can we build a better factory? Unions say: "No we can't."
Can we get cheaper energy? Environmentalists say: "No we can't."
Can we cut the cost of our insurance? Lawyers say: "No we can't."
Can we educate our children? The teachers union says: "No we can't."
Can we cut local taxes? The government unions say: "No we can't."
Can we cut crime in the neighborhoods? Community organizers say: "No we can't."
Can we improve anything? Slashdot says: "No we can't."
If you don't allow low wages, then people will have to choose whether they still want the work done or not.
They don't. They can't compete or make a profit at the higher wage levels. Businesses don't "want" work done. They hire when adding payroll increases profits. At higher wages, that won't be happening much.
If it is important or necessary, they will pay more for the work.
It isn't. And even if it were, they'll outsource it. They'll offshore it. They'll hire independent contractors. Smaller companies that can't get around your artificially high wages will lose out to bigger companies or foreign companies who can.
Entry level is entry level, but forcing labor costs on the bottom up will generally have benefits all around - increased markets, less inequality, etc.
It causes unemployment. All economists agree it causes unemployment, BTW, they only disagree on how much.
We can see the results of your philosophy. It's Detroit.
We should definitely learn from them. For example, all of those countries have lower corporate tax rates than the US.
Lower nominal corporate taxes, but higher revenues from them thanks to fewer tax preferences.
Yes, this is what conservatives in the US have been saying for 30 years. Lower tax rates and a broader tax base nets you more revenue while burdening individual taxpayers less.
We can thank Sweden and Norway for bringing this enlightenment to ears that refused to hear it from Reagan.
How are completely different things "distinct" from each other? I think the answer is "completely".
If you'd like a better answer, please rephrase the question. Thanks.
We should definitely learn from them. For example, all of those countries have lower corporate tax rates than the US.
There are probably lots of other things we can learn from them as well.
Shorter version: your "idea" is to steal money from people.
Thanks for letting us know.
Try buying a house in a decent neighborhood on $24K per year...
Yeah, obviously, low skilled people probably can't afford to own a house. A house is a somewhat high value item. If you only have low value skills to offer, you probably can't afford to buy a house.
In 1970 the average US home cost ... and the average worker made ...
So you're saying a low skilled person should go back in time 40 years? This keeps getting brought up, as if living in the past were some sort of solution. The past is gone.
I'm sure if I went digging for 2011 numbers the disparity for wages vs housing would be even larger.
Or as if complaining about a "disparity" is some sort of solution.
Its unsustainable, particularly with the wage gap increasing, and we as a society better get our act together to ensure we're providing affordable housing in nice neighborhoods so people making that small amount of money can actually afford it...
Got any ideas?
I do. They involve eliminating artificial costs in the US - money that goes to lawyers, union bosses, government red tape, regulations, other government services, etc. We can't afford to keep chasing utopian fantasies.
Do you have any ideas?
otherwise those "Occupy" movements are going to get worse and start getting violent.
And that would solve what? The Occupy movements can't even say what they want without alienating the public. Because they essentially want to receive and/or spend money they didn't earn.
So you have no ideas and nothing offer then? Just more "no we can't".
Ah, the free market at work. Remember, don't try to stop him, or he'll move the jobs to China.
That's the reality. You guys keep arguing and fighting against reality. Do you think you're going to win?
If you re-read my short comment, you may notice that it allows for everyone you mentioned in your comment.
Also, people who refuse to buy health insurance but aren't poor enough to qualify for government-paid health care can buy basic medical treatment just fine. A doctor visit costs $70-$80 or less. They aren't going to buy a heart transplant, but that's not "basic" medical care either.
And people with emergencies get treated in emergency rooms, regardless of whether they can pay.
The original phrase is "so many people cannot afford the most basic medical care". This is plainly false.