"Income Inequality"...

"We the people" was written into the Constitution after the committee on style edited "We the people of the state of New York, Virginia, etc, etc" out of the original draft. They didn't write "We the people" because they believed in the people as a whole, as in the people of the united states, they wrote it because they didn't want to be presumptuous and assume certain states would ratify the Constitution. Ratification was not a sure thing, had they left in the original part about the states, then perhaps the states that were on the fence, may not have ratified and the Federalists would have lost the argument. Furthermore, the concept of "the people" is predicated on propaganda and the belief that we are all of one mindset. It's like when a politician says, "the American people want XYZ", he can't speak for all of us, nor does he know what we all want and he's just using a figure of speech. We all should know that and that is what "the people" is. Also, the people did not and could not have ratified the Constitution, it's why we have representative government, there's the vertical and horizontal diffusion of power and democracy. Even if you dismiss all of that(which I'm sure someone will), the historical record and precedent that has been set places the tenth amendment as a grantee to the states that the federal government would remain limited. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not. It was not written so that the people can grant more power to the federal government. If that were true, it would render the states, the amendment and the enumeration of powers useless as well as place no limit on the government.

The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution granted too much broad power to the federal government. They insisted on a second convention. During the ratification process, many states agreed to ratify with the expectation and condition that the Constitution would be amended. The very first thing Madison did once the first Congress was in session was to put together the Bill of Rights. Nine states sent requests for amendments. His desk was flooded with nearly 200 amendments. Madison chose twelve amendments that he thought were the most important to the states and himself, amongst the most requested was the wording of the tenth amendment. The states wanted a guarantee that powers would be limited and that the states not the federal government would have most of the power. The only power that the federal government would have was enumerated in article 1 section 8. This was a belief that Madison held his entire political career and it was a promise that the Federalists held during the ratification process. All powers not delegated were meant for the states or the people and I mean the individual people of the individual states in their capacity to change local politics, not national. This was not how the framers conceived of "the people" and it most certainly didn't mean the people voting for Congressmen who then in turn vote themselves more power. That makes no sense because Congress is part of the federal government and clearly the tenth amendment is an amendment designed to thwart the federal government. Jefferson considered it the lynchpin of the Constitution.The only way to grant more power to the federal government is not through legislation or statutes, but through the amendment process. I hope that clears things up, though I doubt it as I'm convinced that liberals simply block their mind from either understanding plain English or understanding these type of concepts or both or they simply don't care and are willfully ignorant and just simply want things their way.

You have to submit a logical rebuttal of the offered thesis before you get to declare said thesis illegitimate.

You skipped a couple of steps.

I think the government should stay the fuck out of it, period. And no, I don't think our current form of "welfare" is constitutional. And no, I don't think that just because a company can afford it, their workers are entitled to more money.

you only need a little imagination to think of a dispute that is not between contracted parties that the government might arbitrate:

One company alleges a competitor is infringing on their trademark....
One neighbor alleges their neighbor's fence is on their property...
One state claims that an island in the river that the other state claims is actually theirs...

you could go on all night.

Yes, government authority IS limited here - in that there needs to be a dispute brought to them, they can't (ethically) go mucking about looking for one they were not called upon to mediate. Not that they don't on occasion over-reach as you describe, there are indeed politicians who would like to settle the "dispute" over my gender by fiat, but that is not an example of what I claimed.

Now, if I bring a grievance, or some bible thumper does, about whether or not i can use the ladies room at the courthouse, then the government has been ask to arbitrate (again, between parties with no contractual relationship) and it is indeed their role to decide, even if they decide in a manner I find unjust. The injustice of the decision does not make it unethical that it is their role to decide.

On the other hand, if bible Thumper president decides to take it upon himself to meddle in that which no grievance has been brought, then it is indeed over-reach.

Also, by the way, I would argue that civil human rights are above government stupidity. That is, if you bring a grievance in which you ask the government to violate the other parties natural civil rights, a decision in your favor is still not ethical even though the role of arbiter is in a vacuum ethical.

that's not the question, the question is whether the company is entitled to exploit the worker just because they have the leverage to get away with it?

what is the practical difference in that and, say, share-cropping, or even slavery? If the government hasn't the right to stop an explotative practice then it hasn't the right to stop ANY exploitative practice. if it has the right to stop ANY exploitation (i.e. slavery) then you have already conceded they have a role, all that's left is to define what constitutes exploitation.

There is, however if someone would like to explain how a minimum wages manages that, outside of a cartel?

For starters, in lower paid jobs they tend - by their nature - to be low skilled, so there is a great deal of flexibility of movement. No one is forced into remaining in a lower bracket, and pay is naturally low due to the nature of the work and the large supply of potential workers. There is no exploitation in most cases. Sure, there are outliers where Bob owns all the local businesses, but we're not playing at using extremes to counter the general today, and in those cases it is a failure of local regulators in keeping the local jobs market healthy.

And, as I stated earlier, it creates a barrier to youth unemployment. Where are your ethics there?

I agree that is is the most politically feasible, but it is equally the most shortsighted approach, and I do think a UBI could be politically sugared - especially since it is universal - if the will was there to push it.

I disagree on the minimum avoiding harm, the problem being as inflation and wages rise, there'll be pressure to raise the minimum. And without closing borders (in the US internal migration would be the problem in the main, and I'm sure internal passports would go down a treat ) there will be diffusion from lower average earning areas into ones with higher minimum wages. Those who cannot afford to move (also an issue where you have increasing movement towards cities) and without work experience will be locked out of the jobs market.

There are ways to mitigate those - increased, and subsidised, transport links, training and apprenticeships.

I would be a lot happier if minimums were only applied to people with 2 years verifiable work experience. Yes, in the really crappy jobs you'd have people being booted out after 2 years, but they've got experience then and are less likely to be locked out of the jobs market, and it would be restricted to the really crappy jobs as anything with a modicum of skill requires training and business does not like losing those, as it costs in training the new employee, the time out for the person doing the training, the regulatory requirements and paperwork, and, of course, better to pay the devil you know more than risk an entirely new one fucking things up.

@ecky: I prefer a UBI, too, but any discussion of it in the US raises howls about socialism before you even complete the sentence. With a minimum wage, I have no problem with a version that says one size does not fit all. A lower one for teenagers, for example.

Anyway, I think the bigger problem is that we are near that tipping point where an efficient, growing economy no longer needs or functions best with full labor utilization. Under the current system, that creates an income problem without some remediative efforts.

^True the Castles would spit feathers, even though it is a way to cut government by binning any number of benefit programs and their associated workforce.

And you're spot on with what is happening to the economy, we need to provide something for people to do that isn't what would be traditional employment.

There is probably a good philosophical debate to be had about progress, for example a lot of modern tech is shown to have originated from government subsidised programs, has that unduly accelerated us technologically, beyond our social maturity as a species?

I make no bones that I have a preference for privates sector development, but equally I'm - from a purely selfish point of view - quite happy with the fruits from those subsidised programs, but I wonder if they'll prove to be our undoing. Although we may never have generated those technologies without government intervention. A conundrum to be sure.

The difference is that they are free to leave at anytime.

Absolute bullshit.

Just speaking from experience.

Before i got my current job (for which I am EXCEEDINGLY grateful to the much hated - by many - Walmart) I spent TWENTY TWO months looking for work under every rock. Before that i worked three terms totaling about8 months over the course of 18 months for the census, before that I spent 5 months out of work, having been laid off from a part time MW job when the employer cut staff - a job i'd held 4 months and before that it had been another 8 months out of work.

And that's with me holding a BS and willing to do anything i was physically able to do.

Also, 2 of those 5 years was before i came out publicly (as if it's a valid thing for people not to hire me because I'm trans, which it's not).

So yeah, i have exactly ZERO liberty to just quit my job and walk away - it's financial suicide for me and the people who depend on me. If they told me tonight that in order to keep my job i'd be expected to kiss the ring of the store manager every day before work i'd have to at least give it serious thought.

ARE there things that would force me to risk resigning, as ugly as that would be? Yeah, there are lines that could be crossed. but that does not in any sense mean have complete freedom. Freedom implies i don't have to be desperate in order to decide to resign.

Ever notice there's this strain that's crept into conservatism that has all the passive-aggression of a Jewish mother?

"No, you go ahead, you leave any time you want, you go be happy, I'll just sit here, and die".

Oh do get off that nonsense. Bitch because minimum wage isn't high enough. Bitch because we need a "social safety net." Then when you get it, bitch because we're "subsidizing...corporations." You want to stop "subsidizing" corporations? Fine. Great. I'm all for that. End welfare. It isn't the Government's business to pay people for failing.

They need to be surrounded by people who agree with them in order to feel safe.

What about a failure that takes innocent people down with it?
Y'know, like the fuckin' banks, or fuckin' Enron?
"Too bad for those old folks with their wiped out pensions, get up tomorrow, and just work harder"?
It's cold-blooded, but it would be consistent.

This is where he tells you that Enron only ripped off its shareholders because it was "a victim of TOO MUCH REGULATION!!!!"

And there's also the point that shareholders owned Enron and were therefore responsible for the actions of management. These text book illustrations he likes top trot out work quite well in Fantasyland.

And this is the same thing as slavery? You weren't forced to be there. I have a BA in History and I work at coffee shop. It doesn't pay well and I was promised a raise after my 90 day period. It's been 5 months already and no raise. The place is barely hanging on through the winter and nobody wants to come out in the cold and snow. I'm barely making thirty hours a week. I'd much rather work for the park system or a museum or get my teaching certificate, but all of those things require going back to school for and the field is competitive. There are other options I guess, work in sales, work in an office somewhere, but I'm not what you call a people person and my skillsoutside of restaurants and my history degree are limited. It sucks working at a coffee shop, but the people are great and I get free food. I'm not being forced to work there, I'm not forced to live in an expensive area and if I wanted, I could probably find a better paying job even in another restaurant, but hey it's a Cush job and one I can tolerate until I figure out what my next move is.

You are not being exploited, you are in a voluntary exchange of labor for pay. Your value as a human is not the same as your value as a laborer. You are not entitled to more pay just because your boss can afford it. If you want to get paid more, then make the company more money, make your labor more valuable.

I hate to break it to you, but being a trannie is always going to be a huge hurdle towards getting jobs. If I were a businessman and I saw a man come into an interview in full drag, I simply wouldn't hire him. It's the same as coming in with a tank top and baggy jeans hanging off your ass. It's unprofessional and most people should have enough sense to wear a suit and pull their hair back. It's not something that most of society has accepted and it's unreasonable to expect it to be accepted in the work place. In other words, most people likely think that it should be done outside of work. That's the reality of the situation and it's always going to be a hurdle.

Sure, if they're young, healthy, have the means to borrow money from Dad and move, and have no responsibility for anyone other than themselves. And of course there are jobs just waiting for them wherever they go.

BTW, were you planning to answer this anytime soon:

Your posts on this forum pretty much refute that.

No, what his degree "pretty much" refutes is the validity of your opinion. You love the Appeal to Authority as much as anybody -- so you either stick by that and take his authority as gospel, too, or I don't ever want to see you appeal to authority ever again.

Nope they don't because unlike you, I read about history and speak from my reading. I've read 8 books on the subject of the Constitution, how many have you read? I can cite historical examples and primary sources to back up my claims, can you? I can cite historians who are experts on the subject, who I have read, can you? Just because you have a completely distorted understanding of history does not mean that I am wrong, it just means that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about . The only real problem I have is not expressing my thoughts as clear as I'd like in a nonacademic setting.

8 books?!!! Wow.

How many of them define "legitimate" ethics?

And how many have you read, that you find that worthy of derision?

Not the point.

Were any of them The Constitution?

No, that's exactly the point. Ricky Retardo wants to act like reading books on the Constitution is meaningless -- well, how much first hand experience has he got with that exercise? And if none, then what in the exact or approximate fuck is he speaking from on that topic? Because in the event it equals 'Fucking none' then he's speaking directly out his ass and his opinion should be treated like exactly the other thing that comes directly out of the ass.

Yep, read that as well.

Wasn't number one on your love list though?