THANK YOU for making my point for me at last. Once you have admitted that some governmental regulation of the so called "free market" is part of our system, you must now explain what it is about the specific regulation that we call the minimum wage that makes it so different from all other accepted regulationss that it should be eliminated.
You have not even attempted to do that in our discussion.

Mostly privately owned means that there are are some public production plants, but the rest are privately owned. And yes, taxes are collected. However, you still have not answer the questions I presented in earlier posts. What is your point? That because we are not 100% free market (but mostly) we should tack on as many restrictions on freedom as possible?

__________________
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.

And this relates to the minimum wage somehow?I see no reason to answer questions which have no relevance to the minimum wageIf you think you can find a post where I suggested anything at all like this please point me to it. Until then I will have to assume you are asking this nonsensical question because you cannot provide a rational argument against the minimum wage.

I don't know. You quoted and bolded that quote, and I explained it. Why did you quote and bold it if you didn't know how it was relevant?Ah, I see. More dodging. I have explained how they are relevant: both are transactions between two private entities. If one should be restricted, why not another?"Once you have admitted that some governmental regulation of the so called "free market" is part of our system, you must now explain what it is about the specific regulation that we call the minimum wage that makes it so different from all other accepted regulationss that it should be eliminated."

Basically, you are saying that since the free market is already regulated (ie not as free), I have to tell you why we should not have regulations. On the contrary, in this capitalist society, it is the restricitng side that should provide the reasons for restriction. I have also explained to you why it is unjustified for a third party to decide that terms agreed upon by the two parties actually involved in the transaction are unfair, and I did this by way of the sexual encounter question which you have conveniently refused to answer.

__________________
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.

Actually that bears no relation at all to what I have said or what I asked you to do.

I have already reminded you of the history of the labor laws which gave us minimum wage, safe workplace, and child labor laws in direct response to specific employer abuses. You did not contest those statements. So I have already provided you with "the reasons for restriction" you're asking for.
You have a problem with the minimum wage. You have admitted (finally) that we allow government regulation of the market. Those regulations impact a wide range of business transactions.
I have NOT said that you have to tell why "we should not have regulations" as you suggest. Instead I have asked you to explain what it is about the minimum wage that makes it different from all other government regulation of the market.
I have asked you this question at least 4 times and you have not yet attempted to answer - instead wandering into unrelated areas like sex or accusing me of sayinng or asking things I never have.

Most people working for minimum wage provide far more then their wages to their company. The wages they get paid often times have little to do with how much they personally produce.

Tax regulations: take a percentage of the money transfered in the transaction, yet do not restrict the terms of agreements.

Minimum wage: restrict terms of initial agreement.

__________________
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.

Then perhaps they should all get together and decide not to work for a certain low amount of money. Call it their "minimum wage." Also known as price fixing and unions. Only this time the government won't be holding their hands. And this time, the people actually involved in the transaction will decide upon the terms, instead of having third parties do it for them.

__________________
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.

Why would that be better? And isn't the union a third party? And how can people that poor afford a union anyway?

Workplace safety laws. Child labor laws. Environmental regulations. Antitrust law. Insider trading rules. Consumer safety law. Public disclosure rules. National Labor Relations Act. All these regulations restrict the terms of all kinds of agreements. I have already explained (twice) that the minimum wage law protects wokers from predatory corporate practices which were widespread before that law. I have already explained that our society has decided working people's families should not starve. You have yet to explain why they should.

It would be better because now the actual members of the transaction decide upon the terms. By union I simply mean the collection of workers of a single trade who agree not to work for an amount below what they choose as the "minimum wage." Get it? This time the people who are actually involved in the transaction get to set the terms. You also don't have to afford the union I am discussing. Exactly how much money do you need to get together with your co-workers and talk about a price?

__________________
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.

Ought to be removed. The worker should simply not work if he does not like the conditions. There is nothing impossible about choosing not to work under conditions to which you do not agree. If the info on the TV says it can cause cancer, I won't buy it.Silly. If people want to work, why not let them? I had a hell of a lot of problems trying to find a job before I was 18 with all of the paperwork I had to submit.Introducing fumes into the atmosphere, if proven reasonably harmful, are direcly harmful to everyone in that environment. Similar to my throwing rocks out of my apartment window at pedestrians as part of my "job."Odd that you should mention this, since this is precisely what you support for the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is a forced (legislated) price fix saying that no worker will sell their service for less than a certain amount. Guess what anti-trust laws regulate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust


When a corp. owner sells a share of the company, he often tells the people that the company is doing fine. If he is saying that the company is doing fine while it is actually falling apart and selling the shares still (see: Enron), it is the same as false advertising, IMO. No different than you sending me money for a 2GB Flash Drive, and I send a roll of toilet paper to your address. This is illegal and is comparable to a corporation agreeing to certain terms with an employee and then refusing the fullfill it (company refuses to pay the amount to which it agreed for the services). That is not what happens when an employee agrees to work for $4.00 per hour.I have no problem with companies selling dangerous products as long as they advertise prior to the sale the dangers of the product, or at least as long as they do not lie about the dangers. Companies that want to compete with those not willing to make their products safe can apply for safety checking services (such as FDA) to get their stamp of approval, thus increasing the value of their product and likely driving the competitors out of business. What does whistleblower protection have to do with this?I think corporations should be able to fire employees, just like employees should be allowed to stop providing their services to a corporation, for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it does not violate the contract which each party signed.And as I have pointed out, I either disagree with the acts you posted in that they restrict business deals or I have pointed out that the act you posted regulates business in a totally different manner.All I am saying is that a person who works should only deserve to receive that to which the two parties have agreed. If the contract says "the employee will be protected from starving," then so be it. Otherwise, the worker should only get that to which both parties agreed.

__________________
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.

Gee that union of workers sounds alot like the union of voters that we call the US government. So I guess that means that we the people really aren't an unconcerned third party after all.

It costs a fortune to maintain a union which is going to be capable of negotiating as an equal with corporations. Negotiating with a corporation or trade association with huge legal teams, professionhal negotiators, lobbying grouops etc etc is more than a matter of picking your wage over a beer with the guys and calling the boss to let him know what it is.

You really are just jerking my chain with this stuff right? I mean you didn't really think that a union is no more than just "get together with your co-workers and talk about a price" did you? There are only two explanations for that statement of yours that I can think of. Either you really know nothing at all about any of this or you are making arguments you know are bogus.

What???They don't need to negotiate. They can simply refuse to work until their terms are met. Meanwhile, both entities will suffer. Assuming the price fixed by the workers is not one that doesn't work for the company at all (for instance, if they want to be paid $1000 each time they build an item worth $950 when sold to consumers), the company will eventually cave in to the demands or another company will agree to the demands and force the non-compliant one out of business, either because it closes down, because there is a compliant one in existence or because someone saw that as an opportunity to create one's own company.That is the way in which I used the word union. You wanted clarification and you got it.They are not bogus. What is so bogus in wanting for the decision regarding the terms of an agreement to be made by the parties involved in the agreement instead of a third party?

__________________
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.

Now that you've admitted you think businesses should be allowed to abuse children I think we're done.