But that would be just because you're not gettin' any, and would be bitter...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Are you saying that workers are too stupid to decide whether they want to work for someone and therefore need government protection from themselves? Fact remains, this is a transaction between two people. If it is impossible for both of you to produce no more than 4 items per hour, with the same quality, but one is willing to work for less, then the one willing to work for less is scewed.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

If one person is willing to do the same job for less, then these laws would prevent the better person from competing/So why can't one person be allowed to work for $4.00 an hour if both he and the company want to go for that deal?That is the point of a boycott. That is how the free market works. One entity makes an offer, the others either buy or don't buy. If people are willing to sell a service for $4.00 an hour why not let them? Both of the parties involved are willing participants.Why should I do that? If they want to work, they can. If they don't like the money, they don't. You see, neither private entity (worker or company) owe anything to one another from the beginning.It is quite simple really. Workers and companies are not allowed to make certain deals even if both are willing participants. So, let's say I want to sell gum to someone for $1.00, and he is willing to buy it. But, government says I can only sell it for $2.00 or more, so we both cannot do something we are willing to do.It's called the free market. And what you are trying to pass is called nanny-state legislation, protecting people from themselves. No different than anti-drug laws or laws banning McDonald's.I don't want to see you having sex. So if the religious right's majority passes that, you would be okay? It is the worker's body. He can do with himself whatever he wants as long as he doesn't hurt you.A corporation or business is really no different than any other person or private entity. You simply want to restrict both the workers and business (the only two parties involved) from agreeing to business that both of them agree to.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

How many times do I have to answer this question? Employers cannot pay abusively low wages because we as a society have decieded that anyone who will work for a living should receive a minimum measure of economic reward. It is our right as a society to decdide things like this. If you don't like it I suggest you move somehwhere like indonesia where such rules are not applied and working people starve in the streets.

The "free market" is a fairy tale. If any such thing ever existed it certainly doesn't now. The idea that an individual worker can negotiate as an equal with a corporation is just as uridiculous as your claim that we're hurting poor workers by not allowing them to earn less.
If you can't see the difference between corporate proft making and personal decisions like drug taking and sex then there is really no point in carrying this any further.

So you feel that it is your decision to make about what a person should consider abusive? Why do you feel the decision should fall to anyone other than the two people making the deal?This is why unions/price fixing exists.The person has the ability to make a decision not to do any of the above.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

What are you talking about? Of course it's not my desison. The fair labor standards act was passed in the 30s. How the hell could it be my decision?

Laws are passed regarding all kinds of dealings between people every day. Including many predatory business practices. For at least the third time I am asking you. What is it about profiting from someone elses labor that is so sacred that it should not be regulated like so many other facets of civic life?

Most of the labor laws in existance today were written to address specific abuses of workers which were common in the days before the laws were written. In those times people could work full time and still see their families starve. Workplace injuries and deaths were comonplace. Children left school at 10 to work full time.

Now I'm sure you know all this and are just pretending ignorance because you want to make some point. Why don't you just say what it is you want to say instead of pretending that you don't know the history of labor law or understand the basic concepts of civics?

Another words, it is the decision of men who are likely already dead whether or not two people doing business with only each other should find a deal fair or not?Sure there are. I am simply saying that the business dealings between two people that only affect those two people (or private entities) should be performed at the discretion of those two people, or at least those two people should be the ones deciding what is fair to each on of them. Does that not make sense?Actually, the question is why should you regulate something that is decided upon by two people and affects those two people? Let's say someone tries to get the government to pass a law which would give them the right to tell two separate people whether those two people can have sex with one another or not. Surely the third party trying to pass that law should be the one giving the reasons, and not the couple that is actually involved in the "transaction" giving reasons why he should not have that right.Nobody forced them to work. Without the company for which they worked, they would have no money and no job, period. The company, however, decided that it would work with them. Both the company AND THE EMPLOYEE agreed on the deal. The fact remains, if you don't find a deal to be fair, YOU DON'T AGREE TO IT. If even one entity disagrees, the deal is not made. If I go to a store to buy a TV and find the price to be unfair, I don't go to the government and ask them to force the company to sell me the TV for a lesser cost, I either buy it there, buy it elsewhere, don't buy it at all, or start making my own TVs.All I want to say is that the terms of a transaction between two private entities, which affect those two entities, should be decided by those two entities and nobody else.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Your continued insistance that this "deal" affects only two parties is a fallacy. I have already explained this to you so I don't know why you are still bringing it up. When society has decided that a minimum reward for work is a desirable thing, a transaction between two people which violates that decision affects all of society. The offer of lower wages to one worker has an affect on the wages of all other workers in that market.So this is NOT a transaction between two parties which affects noone else.

Once again (I think this is the third time) you cannot regard a transaction between a corporation and an individual worker in the same way as a negotiation between equals. Pretending that the rules of some mythical "free market" can apply to this relationship is to deliberately ignore reality in favor of some fantasy world. The choice between working for a company mandated wage or starving to death is not a "choice" at all.

Honestly I am baffled by your insistance that people should starve to death to increase corporate profits and that we as a society have no right to set limits on the entities which wish to use our society to generate profits for themselves. Citizens in this country have an obligation to behave in certain ways so that a balance of freedoms and security can be shared by all of us. This expectation is so basic and necessary to the existance of any modern society that I can't imagine why anyone would deny it. You have supplied no reason why corporations should be exempt from that same expectation.

Okay, so how does the deal affect a third party directly?So, if a good-looking woman has sex with an ugly guy, she is lowering the standards for looks. Does that mean there should be laws banning certain people from having sex? Should we have price floors or ceilings on every product and service?But they do have equal rights in the face of the law.The fact remains that you did not earn or do anything in your life to deserve to live, except for the money/products/services you earned or were given to you. The right to life is a right, not a guarantee. Actually, all I support is that a transaction between two people trading one another's property or services should be done at the discretion of those two parties. The fact is that people already can fix prices and join unions. The government basically makes it a forced union/price floor/ceiling.We are individuals as private citizens or other private entities. Like I said, do you wish to extend this to every transaction? Should every item have a price floor or ceiling?So, should everyone charge more for their products and services so that other companies who need to charge that much can compete? What you are basically arguing is that private entities should not do business as efficiently as they can (despite the fact that the parties involved in the transaction agree to the terms) because the incompetent entities can't compete.Where did I say only corporations should be able to do so? All I said was that all private entities should be allowed to perform transactions at the terms they decide, so long as both parties agree. A worker should be able to offer his service at any price he wants and a purchaser (usually a corp) should be able to ask for any price. Neither the buyer nor the seller always get what they want, only if both parties agrees. It really is a no-brainer.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

If you can't produce above minimum wage, you're probably not going to be hired in the first place. Hate to break it to you.

Well then I guess there is no point in having the minimum wage be legislated.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Did you even read my post? I repeated the explanation in the paragraph which followed this statement. i'm not going to repeat it over again.I'm sorry but this makes no sense. It has no relation to the subject.
I don't know. Does this question have some relevance?

Once again does any of this relate to the subject? I don't see how it does.Whenever it is feasible without violating our values as a society this is exactly how things are done already. Unions are not feasible for the lowest paid workers. Non unionized workers cannot effectively negotiate with employers. The mandated minimum wage is more effective, more efficient, easier to enforce, and probably cheaper for employers than mandated union represenation for every worker would be.And like I said, how is this relevant to the subject at hand? It is obvious that some aspects of corporate behavior will be regulated and some will not. There is no reason for that fact to change.

Most people work for corporations. I am discussing th ereal world. That's why I said corporations.

It is obvious that in all places and at all times in history rules are made to govern relationships between people. I have explained over and over again why the minimum wage rule was isntituted. I have explained why it is no different from any other rule which governs the behavior of enitties which wish to use our society to make a profit. You have so far supplied no reason to believe differently. Unless you can come up with such a reason I really don't see why you should expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

I asked for the direct effect. You provided an indirect one of "one affects the wages." If such an indirect effect is enough for you to pass legislature, then we should ban rich people from buying expensive cars because they might indirectly influence other, poorer people to spend their money on the cars and end up poorer.Yep, it does. It is an agreement of service exchanges between two private parties. It affects others by lowering the standards of sex "requirements" just as a lower wage sets a lower standard for wages in other locations. If you think one should be legislated, then it would logically follow that you would want the other to be legislated as well.A price floor is the minimum that a seller can sell something for. A price ceiling is the maximum. To be effective, these are placed above the equilibrium (floor) or below the equilibrium (ceiling). In every transaction, supply and demand dictate that each seller and buyer will trade at the equilibrium point. So, for instance, in terms of mimimum wage, that is a price floor that is placed above the equilibrium. Due to supply and demand, companies might find that it is most profitable, without becoming detrimental to them (nobody works), to pay a certain wage. This is the equilibrium. The minimum wage is a price floor that is placed above the equilibrium. S, the company cannot go below the price floor to reach equilibrium. An example of a price ceiling would be requiring a company to sell a TV at no more than $1,200.00 when the company would normally sell it at $1,500.00.Your argument for minimum wage implies that each worker deserves to be paid a certain amount. That then implies that the worker deserves to have a job because he deserves to be able to afford food.We as a society are capitalist/free market. And the minimum wage violates just that.Who said we should have mandated union representation? Mandated price fixing is just what I am against.Collection of taxes is something I support. That is the tax percentage collected from the original terms of the transaction. I see no justification for forcing certain original terms on people, however.And what you need to realize is that both the worker and the employer (often the corporation) are restricted from setting the price, which is something only they should be able to do. Right now it is backwards.Are you going to address the questions about sexual exchanges or not?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.