| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That principle would argue against any laws made by legislators anywhere. On any scale.The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.By this logic, the people of Delaware must really love giving corporations lots of rights.
You're also assuming that the lawmakers give a flying fumble about the lives of iowans, and the ones most impacted by a minimum age increase. They don't.
Which the Libertarians would love. "No one understands me better than I myself do, therefore no laws enacted by anyone other than myself are binding. I am the sole ruler of everything that happens to MEEEEEEE!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.
...
OK, I'm going to take a leap here, but I think it applies really well to this conversation, and it is going to get me in good with Anklebiter.
The individual business should decided how much to pay workers, because it is the people in that company that know their business works best.
With me so far?
And the business should make decisions based on what the people in the company think, because, similar to the quote above, they know their business best. The problem is that the "owners" are making the decisions, not the people who are there doing the work. If people were "owner/workers" and not just "workers" or "owners" then we wouldn't be having these problems. Piss poor wages, sky high executive pay, outsourcing, campaign finance problems and a variety of other issues would be gone tomorrow if people had democracy in the workplace, rather then just "democracy" in government.
http://rdwolff.com/economiccrisis
|
This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.Which is why the country has a democratic government. If people don't like it, they can elect people to change the law: either to repeal the national minimum wage or to raise it.
The logic is the same.
You could also make the same argument you do on the state level: People slinging burgers in upstate New York don't have the same expenses as people doing the same in New York City, therefore having the states make minimum wage laws is ridiculous. Counties or towns should do it.
To which I would make the same reply.
Yes. Of course. Totally rational.
We live in a democracy, and we are allowed to have opinions, and can, in numbers have those opinions made law.
I don't like minimum wage laws in general, but I'm okay with states doing it, as it is slightly less absurd than the federal gov't doing the same.
Now we come to it. The basic problem is that you don't like minimum wage laws. Therefore it's better to fight them one state at a time than on the federal level.
And it's easier to argue "It's a state issue" than to argue against the concept, so ...That's generally the way all the "State's rights" issues go. Of course when you can win on the federal level, "state's rights" go out the window. Witness Scalia on medical marijuana.
not at all.
I don't like minimum wage laws. I think they distort the market.
BUT I'm okay with them on a state level. They aren't great, and I believe there's some research that says they might actually depress wages, (don't quote me on that), but whatever. Not a major issue.
I don't think the federal gov't should set them. Fine with plenty of other workplace things the feds do, like OSHA and what-not, but I don't like the feds setting wages, anymore than I like the feds setting prices on anything.
|
|
The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.By this logic, the people of Delaware must really love giving corporations lots of rights.
You're also assuming that the lawmakers give a flying fumble about the lives of iowans, and the ones most impacted by a minimum age increase. They don't.
The people of Delaware have built themselves a nice little legal/financial hub and accompanying industry as a result of the "Delaware Corporation".
I dunno if they'd be upset that their state is taking away tax revenue from other states in exchange for the thousands of jobs their little loophole has created in American corporate law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like minimum wage laws. I think they distort the market.
The market is already distorted. There is no such thing as a "free market". Never has been, and probably never will be. There will always be VERY good reasons to reign in "pure capitalism" such as morality, democracy and security. Once you realize that there can't be a "free market" you realize that everything government does picks economic winners and losers.
Belief in a "free market" is dangerous because it is a fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people of Delaware have built themselves a nice little legal/financial hub and accompanying industry as a result of the "Delaware Corporation".
I dunno if they'd be upset that their state is taking away tax revenue from other states in exchange for the thousands of jobs their little loophole has created in American corporate law.
"Definition of 'Delaware Corporation'
A corporation that is legally registered in the state of Delaware, but may conduct business in any state. Delaware first began to adapt its laws in the late 19th century, making changes that would attract businesses away from neighboring New York State. Over time, Delaware became a respected state in which to incorporate, even if the majority of a company's business was conducted outside the state."
Sounds like a case of "race to the bottom" to me.
Just because someone gets rich in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or Delaware or whatever doesn't make it morally right. It just means that people who can't afford such scams have to make up the difference. Sucks for the working stiff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people of Delaware have built themselves a nice little legal/financial hub and accompanying industry as a result of the "Delaware Corporation".
The LEGISLATURE of Delaware has built themselves a nice financial hub. HUGE difference.
I dunno if they'd be upset that their state is taking away tax revenue from other states in exchange for the thousands of jobs their little loophole has created in American corporate law.
They're there because the tax revenue is minimal. Its a race to the bottom to see which state will charge them the least, and its cheaper to chip in together and buy one state legislature than for all of them to pay more in taxes.
|
|
I don't like minimum wage laws. I think they distort the market.The market is already distorted. There is no such thing as a "free market". Never has been, and probably never will be. There will always be VERY good reasons to reign in "pure capitalism" such as morality, democracy and security. Once you realize that there can't be a "free market" you realize that everything government does picks economic winners and losers.
Belief in a "free market" is dangerous because it is a fantasy.
Of course the market is distorted.
That doesn't mean that we should just go hog wild and artificially distort it all we can.
|
|
The people of Delaware have built themselves a nice little legal/financial hub and accompanying industry as a result of the "Delaware Corporation".The LEGISLATURE of Delaware has built themselves a nice financial hub. HUGE difference.
I dunno if they'd be upset that their state is taking away tax revenue from other states in exchange for the thousands of jobs their little loophole has created in American corporate law.They're there because the tax revenue is minimal. Its a race to the bottom to see which state will charge them the least, and its cheaper to chip in together and buy one state legislature than for all of them to pay more in taxes.
It also ensures that companies have a single place to go to resolve disputes, one set of courts, etc.
The "Delaware Corporation" started out as a fancy way to lure away companies from New Jersey, but it has done wonders for the US economy as a whole.
It also ensures that companies have a single place to go to resolve disputes
In their favor
one set of courts,
That they bought and paid for
The "Delaware Corporation" started out as a fancy way to lure away companies from New Jersey, but it has done wonders for the US economy as a whole.
But is absolutely horrible towards actual americans that DON"T fit in a PO box.
|
|
It also ensures that companies have a single place to go to resolve disputesIn their favor
one set of courts,That they bought and paid for
But is absolutely horrible towards actual americans that DON"T fit in a PO box.The "Delaware Corporation" started out as a fancy way to lure away companies from New Jersey, but it has done wonders for the US economy as a whole.
No.
Delaware has simple incorporation laws. It allows for a quick, relatively painless means of incorporating a company. This allows for a low start up cost for businesses. This in turn, allows for more competition. Because everyone who is anyone is a Delaware corporation, they all fall under the same regulatory schema in this regards, meaning that the cost of hiring corporate law specialists decreases, since all the specialists are specialists in this field.
Does it siphon off tax revenue from other states? Yes.
But does it benefit the economy as a whole? Yes.
Before the Delaware Corporation companies used to have to PETITION THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR INCORPORATION. It was insane. This is a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.
Clearly that's not something that can be proven, but it's generally the rationale for the federalist system.
As someone who has spent time in Iowa, I wouldn't trust Iowans to walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone run a sophisticated government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Delaware has simple incorporation laws. It allows for a quick, relatively painless means of incorporating a company. This allows for a low start up cost for businesses. This in turn, allows for more competition.
It also allows for more corporate shenanigans, like ripping people off and reforming under a new name, or forming a corporation to buy a company and then split the companies debt off , sell the profitable part, raid the pension fund to pay for your companies "consulting fees"
Because everyone who is anyone is a Delaware corporation, they all fall under the same regulatory schema
Or lack thereof.
Does it siphon off tax revenue from other states? Yes.
It doesn't just re direct tax revenue. It drops it. And that means that you have to pay more in taxes to make up for that shortfall, because the government doesn't spend less just because the corporations are taxed less.
And no. That money doesn't trickle down.
But does it benefit the economy as a whole? Yes.
There's more to the economy than wallstreet.
Before the Delaware Corporation companies used to have to PETITION THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR INCORPORATION. It was insane. This is a good thing.
getting incorporated was SUPPOSED to be hard. They're incredibly abusable
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But does it benefit the economy as a whole? Yes.
Before the Delaware Corporation companies used to have to PETITION THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR INCORPORATION. It was insane. This is a good thing.
It does not benefit the economy as a whole, it benefits the few at the cost of the many.
When you have stricter incorporation laws, you have corporations that actually fear the people because they could be dissolved if they were no longer seen to be working in the public interest.
It was sane.
|
|
Delaware has simple incorporation laws. It allows for a quick, relatively painless means of incorporating a company. This allows for a low start up cost for businesses. This in turn, allows for more competition.It also allows for more corporate shenanigans, like ripping people off and reforming under a new name, or forming a corporation to buy a company and then split the companies debt off , sell the profitable part, raid the pension fund to pay for your companies "consulting fees"
Because everyone who is anyone is a Delaware corporation, they all fall under the same regulatory schemaOr lack thereof.
Does it siphon off tax revenue from other states? Yes.It doesn't just re direct tax revenue. It drops it. And that means that you have to pay more in taxes to make up for that shortfall, because the government doesn't spend less just because the corporations are taxed less.
And no. That money doesn't trickle down.
But does it benefit the economy as a whole? Yes.There's more to the economy than wallstreet.
Before the Delaware Corporation companies used to have to PETITION THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR INCORPORATION. It was insane. This is a good thing.getting incorporated was SUPPOSED to be hard. They're incredibly abusable
when it is easy to set up and yes, easy to fold up, a business, economies become more competitive. reducing the cost of entry (and exit) allows for new competitors, greater innovation, etc.
besides, corporate taxation is a bad idea in the first place. it's double taxation, and emininently abusable. tax incomes, not businesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you figure it's double taxation?
Isn't sales tax double taxation, since I'm being taxed on income and what's left over is taxed again?
If businesses only have to pay taxes on profits (gross income-expenses) why am I taxed on gross income?
|
|
Businesses are owned by people, no? Any tax on them is effectively a tax on the business owner, who is further taxed on his direct income from the business.
Why not just cut out the corporate taxation part (which is rife with corruption and ridiculousness) and tax the actual proceeds of the business - the capital gains to the shareholder?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can't get them to pay taxes once, much less twice.
|
It's all good. Since the GOP blocked the minimum wage increase in Congress many states and even individual cities have passed local wage increases. Granted, these are universally in Democrat controlled areas, but IMO that's a good thing. People who vote for Republicans can continue to make 1970s wages and people who vote for Democrats can afford to feed their families.
Roberts unwittingly did something similar with his crazy, 'once a federal program is passed it cannot be changed without state approval' ruling on the Medicare expansion... now people who voted for GOP control in their state have the right to go without healthcare and die, while people who voted for Democrat control are covered by the expansion.
Win-win. Everyone gets what they want. Obama should have done the entire Affordable Care Act that way from the start. Indeed, I think most of the problems in the US could be solved by letting Republican and Democrat controlled states enact radically different economic policies. It would then VERY quickly become apparent which policies work and which do not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Businesses are owned by people, no? Any tax on them is effectively a tax on the business owner, who is further taxed on his direct income from the business.
Why not just cut out the corporate taxation part (which is rife with corruption and ridiculousness) and tax the actual proceeds of the business - the capital gains to the shareholder?
Wait, if businesses are owned by people, and corporations ARE people...then the shareholder dynamic IS SLAVERY! *gasp*
But realistically, if you DON'T tax the business where it DOES business, how do you keep the shareholders or owners from declaring somewhere with no income tax as their home and getting away with 0% tax on the entire business?
You'll have to give me an example of this "corruption" re: corporate taxes you keep mentioning and expecting no one to question like it was common knowledge.
It's all good. Since the GOP blocked the minimum wage increase in Congress many states and even individual cities have passed local wage increases. Granted, these are universally in Democrat controlled areas, but IMO that's a good thing. People who vote for Republicans can continue to make 1970s wages and people who vote for Democrats can afford to feed their families.
Roberts unwittingly did something similar with his crazy, 'once a federal program is passed it cannot be changed without state approval' ruling on the Medicare expansion... now people who voted for GOP control in their state have the right to go without healthcare and die, while people who voted for Democrat control are covered by the expansion. Win-win. Everyone gets what they want. Obama should have done the entire Affordable Care Act that way from the start.
Except that red states have plenty of Democrats, and vice-versa.
Indeed, I think most of the problems in the US could be solved by letting Republican and Democrat controlled states enact radically different economic policies. It would then VERY quickly become apparent which policies work and which do not.
That would split the country within a generation.
Indeed, I think most of the problems in the US could be solved by letting Republican and Democrat controlled states enact radically different economic policies. It would then VERY quickly become apparent which policies work and which do not.That would split the country within a generation.
You're right.
That DOES sound like a good plan.|
|
That would split the country within a generation.
I'm an optimist. I choose to believe that, faced with overwhelming evidence of the effects of the differing economic policies, the less successful of those approaches would cease to exist / be voted out and the whole country would then be better off.
Granted, there is already a clear disparity in economic prosperity, health, education, and a host of other indicators between the 'Blue' and 'Red' states which hasn't resulted in a voting sea change... but if this were kicked into over-drive so that one portion of the country returned to prosperity while the other regressed back towards the Stone Age, after each group got exactly the economic policies they asked for, it'd be awfully difficult to continue ignoring the real causes of the problems.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an optimist. I choose to believe that, faced with overwhelming evidence of the effects of the differing economic policies, the less successful of those approaches would cease to exist / be voted out and the whole country would then be better off.
If this is the case, why do Americans, who are effectively not a first world country, deride the European economic systems that are providing higher standards of living?
We're talking about people that can deny evolution, global warming, and the earth being more than 10,000 years old. I'm pretty sure they can make something up so that the blue states seem to be doing worse. They already do this. For example, they complain about washington taking their money when the fact is the redder the state is the more likely the feds are to be sending money TO them rather than taking it away.
People do not let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
I'm pretty sure they can make something up so that the blue states seem to be doing worse.
As evidenced by the recent trend of inverted y-axes on graphs being shown by Fox News when it comes to economic growth in blue states and things like enrollment in the PPA/ACA (Obamacare).
They are deliberately inverting the y-axis on graphs to make it look as though prosperity and/or enrollments are down. Higher numbers on the bottom of the graph, lower numbers on the top. So the numbers "trend downwards" to prove their point, when really all they're doing is spreading falsified data.
And their audience believes it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People do not let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
Bingo. In my opinion it's one of mankind's biggest shortcomings. Which I will continue to believe, even if shown facts to the contrary. ;-)
I'm pretty sure they can make something up so that the blue states seem to be doing worse.
As evidenced by the recent trend of inverted y-axes on graphs being shown by Fox News when it comes to economic growth in blue states and things like enrollment in the PPA/ACA (Obamacare).
When was that? Thats got to be a daily show segment...
When was that? Thats got to be a daily show segment...I'm pretty sure they can make something up so that the blue states seem to be doing worse.
As evidenced by the recent trend of inverted y-axes on graphs being shown by Fox News when it comes to economic growth in blue states and things like enrollment in the PPA/ACA (Obamacare).
Not sure if it's been on the Daily Show (I don't have cable and I don't watch much of anything other than Netflix, as I refuse to let Comcast into my house), but it's not a gag. They're actually doing this. One of the TV's in our break room here in my building is perpetually tuned to Fox and I saw it with my own eyes yesterday during one of their segments. They were using it to "prove" that enrollment was trending downwards. I pointed out to a coworker at the table that the y-axis was inverted, and he informed me they've been doing it for a while, now.
*edit*
There is a graphic currently going around that purports to be from FOX and shows something very similar to what I'm talking about (ACA/PPA numbers "down" with 8.6 million on the bottom end). That's not the one I saw on the screen yesterday, and the one making the rounds has been verified as a hoax. I refuse to buy in to those, just for the record.
However, here is some of what I'm talking about:
Not sure if it's been on the Daily Show (I don't have cable and I don't watch much of anything other than Netflix, as I refuse to let Comcast into my house), but it's not a gag.
You should pick up the daily show on hulu. Even trying to be fake news they wind up the realest news on American tv, and half of their schtick comes from the insanity at fox news.
foxnewsgraphs.tumblr.com
Some of them are quite amusing. I particularly like "Chuck Norris Facts Are they True?"
Looking at them, I don't see Fox reversing graphs, but they seem to routinely adjust the Y axis so that it starts at something other than 0 to imply that that there is significantly greater percentage of difference between 2 values. For example if you have 2 data points, 35% and 39.6%, but you show your graph at 34 to 42%, they look like there is a 400% difference until you actually look at the data and realize it is like 15%.
|
|
If this is the case, why do Americans, who are effectively not a first world country, deride the European economic systems that are providing higher standards of living?
We're talking about people that can deny evolution, global warming, and the earth being more than 10,000 years old. I'm pretty sure they can make something up so that the blue states seem to be doing worse. They already do this. For example, they complain about washington taking their money when the fact is the redder the state is the more likely the feds are to be sending money TO them rather than taking it away.
People do not let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
All true, and I noted the same in my comment. However, the greater the contrast between propaganda and reality the more people who finally see through the veil. Sure, there are many who won't be convinced by any amount of proof, but present a stark and incontrovertible difference and the majority will understand.
Most people don't pay enough attention to have the sort of strong 'beliefs' that are impervious to facts... but they'd notice if they were suddenly markedly poorer while those following different policies were clearly better off.
The problem right now is that it is always possible to 'blame the other guys' when things go wrong. We have such a mish-mash of 'left' and 'right' policies that nothing is ever a 'clear win' for either side in the eyes of the mass uninvolved. Hence my view that we need to increase the contrast so that people don't need to be paying close attention to see the difference.
Most people don't pay enough attention to have the sort of strong 'beliefs' that are impervious to facts... but they'd notice if they were suddenly markedly poorer while those following different policies were clearly better off.
So red states on the border with canada are....?
You're tossing out hypotheticals saying that people can't possibly be that stupid. Cold hard reality is giving me pretty specific examples of voting majorities who are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather people who work be able to earn enough to support themselves and not rely on government assistance, especially when they work for employers who receive tax breaks and subsidies to the tune of $7.8 billion/year (claims some group called Americans for Tax Fairness).
[Looks to the left]
Ohmigod, did you see that? Some dude just sold his EBT card for a six pack!
I am against subsidies as well as minimum wage. Minimum wage and licensing requirements keep many young unskilled labor workers from getting their foot in the door and getting on the job training.
Most people don't pay enough attention to have the sort of strong 'beliefs' that are impervious to facts... but they'd notice if they were suddenly markedly poorer while those following different policies were clearly better off.So red states on the border with canada are....?
You're tossing out hypotheticals saying that people can't possibly be that stupid. Cold hard reality is giving me pretty specific examples of voting majorities who are.
You say that like anybody pays attention to Canada. Pffft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am against subsidies as well as minimum wage. Minimum wage and licensing requirements keep many young unskilled labor workers from getting their foot in the door and getting on the job training.I'd rather people who work be able to earn enough to support themselves and not rely on government assistance, especially when they work for employers who receive tax breaks and subsidies to the tune of $7.8 billion/year (claims some group called Americans for Tax Fairness).
[Looks to the left]
Ohmigod, did you see that? Some dude just sold his EBT card for a six pack!
We've had life without minimum wage. With it its better. Experimental evidence > than ideological driven speculation AstroTurfed by the people that would benefit from it most.
McDonald's Protesters Arrested During Rally at Headquarters
Meanwhile, In These Times's Arun Gupta gets an op-ed piece on al-Jazeera and talks about Kshama Sawant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minimum wage does not make life better. I believe that it makes it more difficult for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions and get trained cheaply on the job.
Democratic Mayor and Stooge of the Plutocracy Ed Murray seems to agree with you.
Is Mayor Murray's Landmark $15 Minimum Wage Deal Unraveling Before Our Eyes?
David Harvey reviews Thomas Piketty
Bookmarking for now; it reminds me of an exchange with Comrade Pravda in another thread that I might come back to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minimum wage does not make life better. I believe that it makes it more difficult for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions and get trained cheaply on the job.
These statements are not mutually exclusive. One does not demonstrate the other. How difficult it is for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions is not the only consideration here.
In fact, there are so many competing and interactive considerations that I think its impossible to sit in your chair like a philosopher and say what would happen if there were no minimum wage. There's no NEED to. We had laisez fair capitalism in the 1890s-1930s and it sucked. The businesses colluded, wages were starvation or lower, the corporations rolled in the money and the unwashed masses breathed in asbestos and died like flies.
You want to go back to that so.. what? Billionaires can roll around on more money?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minimum wage does not make life better. I believe that it makes it more difficult for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions and get trained cheaply on the job.These statements are not mutually exclusive. One does not demonstrate the other. How difficult it is for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions is not the only consideration here.
In fact, there are so many competing and interactive considerations that I think its impossible to sit in your chair like a philosopher and say what would happen if there were no minimum wage. There's no NEED to. We had laisez fair capitalism in the 1890s-1930s and it sucked. The businesses colluded, wages were starvation or lower, the corporations rolled in the money and the unwashed masses breathed in asbestos and died like flies.
You want to go back to that so.. what? Billionaires can roll around on more money?
I disagree with you. The 1890s to 1920s were a period of great economic growth. But regulations creeped in during the 1910s and 1920s. The first few years of the Great Depression were not the worse, in fact we were very close to recovering in 1931, but then we elected FDR who regulated everything, everything got worse, and kept us in the depression until our entry in WW2 pulled us out of the depression.
Right now, Switzerland has no minimum wage, also there median income is much higher, and their unemployment around 3%. We could also learn much from their banking system, as they have had the most stable banks and currency in history. There are things I don't like about Switzerland, but banks, minimum wage, currency, and immigration they do well. Just my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with you. The 1890s to 1920s were a period of great economic growth.
Ok. Stop.
You're spewing out random phrases that are not connected to each other or anything I said in any meaningful fashion.
"It sucked" and "it was a period of great economic growth" aren't mutually exclusive either. Its entirely possible that you have great economic growth because you're underpaying and overworking your workers.
But regulations creeped in during the 1910s and 1920s. The first few years of the Great Depression were not the worse, in fact we were very close to recovering in 1931, but then we elected FDR who regulated everything, everything got worse, and kept us in the depression until our entry in WW2 pulled us out of the depression.
... the great depression was caused by too much regulation.
Right now, Switzerland has no minimum wage, also there median income is much higher, and their unemployment around 3%. We could also learn much from their banking system, as they have had the most stable banks and currency in history. There are things I don't like about Switzerland, but banks, minimum wage, currency, and immigration they do well. Just my opinion.
And is the US more like switzerland or more like the US in the 1920s?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think's there's a legitimate concern that minimum wages can act as an anchor for hourly salaries to gravitate to though.
Yes, and that is why in Sweden the worker's movement have never really tried to get one. Minimum wages are better than nothing, but can stifle wage increases.
However, getting rid of minimum wages in the US would be horrible, as there is no other system.
In Sweden we have historically had very strong unions, and while they've grown yellower and yellower over the years they've still worked better than minimum wages, through the unions basically setting their own minimum wages rather than the state doing it.
However, until the US gets strong union protection laws, removal of minimum wages will just result in a big fat dump on wages overall.