Text 3199, 121 rader
Skriven 2006-11-25 10:50:00 av Bob Klahn (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Tim Richardson
Ärende: Amendment Fourteen
==========================
JM>>> Why should the government even be involved in what a
JM>>> employer and an employee agree is a fair price for the
JM>>> employees services?

BK>>   Because it's good for the country, good for the family, and
BK>>   decent.

JM>>Where in the Constitution do you think the government get the OK to stick
JM>>it's nose into what a
JM>>employer and an employee agree is a fair price for the employees services?

 TR> Its in `the penumbra'.

 No, in the commerce clause.

>>  Oh, and your claim that they agree on a fair price is

BK>>   deceptive. Your employer and employee agree it's what the
BK>>   worker will take or starve, fairness has nothing to do with it.

JM>>No one is holding a gun to the perspective employee's head making him
JM>>accept the job.

JM>>If the perspective employee feels he is worth more than the  employer is
JM>>willing to offer, he/she can look some ware else.

 TR> Or not work at all.

 Which is where the whole problem lies. If the choice is between
 a wage that puts a family into poverty, or no wage at all,
 families wind up living in poverty.

 TR> Here's the problem with this:

 TR> A vast majority of those who are demanding that the
 TR> government `do something' so *they* can make a real good
 TR> wage.......and *they* can afford a decent level of life
 TR> (home ownership, decent vehicle, etc), are the probably

 Probably???

 TR> *same* ones who instead of going to school every day it was
 TR> in session, paying attention to the teachers, and striving
 TR> to do their best in the work, were runnin' around with
 TR> their `friends'........doin' beer parties all the time,
 TR> smokin' weed all the time, doin' their thing.

 And your statistical basis for saying that?

 And the minimum wage, even after any currently considered raise,
 doesn't provide what you describe if you have an average family.

 The minimum wage, on any level currently under any serious
 consideration is not a "real good wage".

 The median income for *men* in this country is just under
 $30K/yr. For women it's just over $17K/yr. Neither is a middle
 class income. Does that mean over half the population of this
 country didn't go to school every day, didn't pay attention,
 didn't strive to do their best?

 For married couples, only with the wife in the paid labor force
 does the income hit well up there, at over $75K median. For
 single income married couples the median is about $41K, barely
 middle clase, IMO. Which is also about the median income for men
 at their highest income years, 45 to 54. For all other age
 ranges it's lower. IOW, most people in this country are not
 doing all that well, income wise. Guess the US is filled with
 people who just didn't try in school.

 All numbers from the statistical abstract of the US 2006
 edition. Tables 682 and 685.

 TR> Now that those in their class who *did* pay attention and
 TR> work hard, have had that hard work in school pay off by
 TR> giving them the tools they needed later in life to succeed,
 TR> and are in the top wage earning brackets.....they think the
 TR> government should `give' them something *they* had the
 TR> chance to get for themselves and didn't: success!

 Nah, the guys who paid attention and worked hard an got the good
 jobs had their jobs outsourced to India or their business
 bankrupted by Walmart, or suffered an injury or illness and
 lost their jobs. Hell, even doctors see their work being
 outsourced to India.

 TR> But......if you don't apply yourself when you have the
 TR> opportunity and work hard toward your *own* success, its a
 TR> little hard to convince people that you *deserve* to have
 TR> the government hand you on a silver platter, what you
 TR> `should' have been working to get for yourself!

 Yeah, $7/hr is too good for you. You don't deserve the new SUV
 you'd buy on that exorbitant salary.

 TR> And the goddamn liberals and democrats will try to
 TR> `legislate' a built-in `success for everyone', paid for by
 TR> the U.S. Taxpayers. Just give `em five minutes.

 Hell, Bush is doing that for his buddies now.

 And cutting everyone else out.

 Just rechecked, from 1950 till 1970 the minimum wage was over
 50% of the average wage. Stat ab 1993 table 675. Now the minimum
 is $5.15/hr, but the average is $17.75. Stat ab 2006 table 629.
 After 1970 it started to go down.

 The minimum wage is 30% of the average today. Were workers
 receiving an exorbitant wage at the minimum in 1950? 1960? 1969?
 They need $8.88/hr just to be at 50%. And that ain't gonna buy
 you a big house in the burbs and an SUV and Filet Mignon every
 week.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Peace is our profession, War is just a hobby, chicken a way of life. SAC
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)