Trump and the minimum wage

[Odin]

Trump said he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage. Wow, such a champion of the working class.

[Kinser79]

(05-08-2016, 06:14 PM)Odin Wrote: Trump said he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage. Wow, such a champion of the working class.

Going to require a source for that. And even if he did, it would have to go through Congress.

---

(05-08-2016, 05:07 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: Wow, that is a very intelligent argument by Mr. Adams! I never realized that what Trump was doing actually had such a strategy, if he was going for that at all! I wonder if he can actually beat Clinton in November!

Daddy can beat Clinton with one hand tied behind his back. While Scott Adams has more than a few points, I also think he's not counting on the other strengths that Trump has, that is he has a savvy team that is using everything from internet memes (you'll hear me refer to the Meme Team from time to time) to just going out and at least seeming like he's speaking from the gut. That is to say to appear to be speaking from his mind and heart (or whatever) and not some memorized pre-written speech.

[Odin]

(05-08-2016, 06:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 06:14 PM)Odin Wrote: Trump said he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage. Wow, such a champion of the working class.

Going to require a source for that.  And even if he did, it would have to go through Congress.

Source.

[Kinser79]

(05-08-2016, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 06:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 06:14 PM)Odin Wrote: Trump said he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage. Wow, such a champion of the working class.

Going to require a source for that.  And even if he did, it would have to go through Congress.

Source.

Hilarious.  Apparently you don't know how to read Odin.  (Not that I really expected you to be able to read.)

He wants to let the states decide their own minimum wages.  Something that most states already do.  And honestly something that really should be a States Issue.

10th Amendment Wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has to have a federal minimum wage, then it can be safely kicked over to the states.

[Odin]

(05-08-2016, 08:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: He wants to let the states decide their own minimum wages.

Tomayto, tomahto. different ways of saying the same thing, just different framing.

[Kinser79]

(05-09-2016, 07:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 08:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: He wants to let the states decide their own minimum wages.

Tomayto, tomahto. different ways of saying the same thing, just different framing.

No it is not. Most states already have a state minimum wage. Those states that don't would quickly adopt one, because unlike Washington, state legislators actually have to get work done. As minimum wages are not a requirement under the constitution, they can be covered under state laws, and the states are more likely to be able to adjust their minimum wages faster than getting the federal one adjusted. There are fewer lobbyists and such.

If anything moving that from Washington to Tallahassee, Jefferson City and the like would be a net positive for working people.

But keep on with your own uninformed delusions Odin. It is funny to watch you hit panic mode over nothing.

[Galen]

[quote pid='180' dateline='1462755995']

10th Amendment Wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has to have a federal minimum wage, then it can be safely kicked over to the states.
[/quote]

It means more than that but you can't see it.  It means that unless the power to do something is explicitly delegated to Congress then the Federal government is not allowed to do it.  Even Alexander Hamilton who wanted a much more powerful central government admitted that in the Federalist Papers, written before the Bill or Rights and the Tenth Amendment was adopted.

[pbrower2a]

(05-10-2016, 04:42 AM)Galen Wrote: [quote pid='180' dateline='1462755995']

10th Amendment Wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has to have a federal minimum wage, then it can be safely kicked over to the states.

It means more than that but you can't see it.  It means that unless the power to do something is explicitly delegated to Congress then the Federal government is not allowed to do it.  Even Alexander Hamilton who wanted a much more powerful central government admitted that in the Federalist Papers, written before the Bill or Rights and the Tenth Amendment was adopted.
[/quote]

Commerce clause.

[Kinser79]

(05-10-2016, 02:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Commerce clause.

Does not apply unless one is going to say that companies transport labor across state lines (which could only be realistically argued for transport workers). Maybe those who telecommute, it is conceivable that one might have their factory in Michigan and their customer service in Mississippi and those customer service people perform their work via the internet or phone network.

Commerce clause Wrote:Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Since labor is usually provided wherever the worker is, unless the worker themselves is crossing state lines on-the-clock (or their labor on-the-clock does), the commerce clause would not apply and State Law would (and does).

[Odin]

(05-10-2016, 12:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-09-2016, 07:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 08:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: He wants to let the states decide their own minimum wages.

Tomayto, tomahto. different ways of saying the same thing, just different framing.

No it is not.  Most states already have a state minimum wage.  Those states that don't would quickly adopt one, because unlike Washington, state legislators actually have to get work done.  As minimum wages are not a requirement under the constitution, they can be covered under state laws, and the states are more likely to be able to adjust their minimum wages faster than getting the federal one adjusted.  There are fewer lobbyists and such.

If anything moving that from Washington to Tallahassee, Jefferson City and the like would be a net positive for working people.

But keep on with your own uninformed delusions Odin.  It is funny to watch you hit panic mode over nothing.

I consider a living wage a right, and so I consider the "leaving it to the states" argument to be equivalent to those crying "states' rights" in defense of segregation.

[Kinser79]

(05-10-2016, 05:57 PM)Odin Wrote: I consider a living wage a right, and so I consider the "leaving it to the states" argument to be equivalent to those crying "states' rights" in defense of segregation.

A living wage isn't a right, whether you consider it one or not. The simple fact of the matter is the price of labor is going to be at least the minimum sustenance level and only rises above that either through wage controls (which can be left to the states) or through supply and demand mechanisms.

Furthermore, trying to compare the minimum wage with segregation is quite frankly disgusting. One is the overt denial of service to persons on the basis of their race, the other is paying them what the labor market dictates their wage should be.

If you are really concerned about the wages paid to poor people then you should concern yourself with the masses of illegal economic migrants coming into the country and depressing wages for native born citizens. Not to mention the disastrous trade policies which have lead to the de-industiralization of America.

[Galen]

(05-10-2016, 02:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-10-2016, 04:42 AM)Galen Wrote: [quote pid='180' dateline='1462755995']

10th Amendment Wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has to have a federal minimum wage, then it can be safely kicked over to the states.

It means more than that but you can't see it.  It means that unless the power to do something is explicitly delegated to Congress then the Federal government is not allowed to do it.  Even Alexander Hamilton who wanted a much more powerful central government admitted that in the Federalist Papers, written before the Bill or Rights and the Tenth Amendment was adopted.

Commerce clause.
[/quote]

Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

[pbrower2a]

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-10-2016, 02:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-10-2016, 04:42 AM)Galen Wrote: [quote pid='180' dateline='1462755995']

10th Amendment Wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has to have a federal minimum wage, then it can be safely kicked over to the states.

It means more than that but you can't see it.  It means that unless the power to do something is explicitly delegated to Congress then the Federal government is not allowed to do it.  Even Alexander Hamilton who wanted a much more powerful central government admitted that in the Federalist Papers, written before the Bill or Rights and the Tenth Amendment was adopted.

Commerce clause.

Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.
[/quote]

The federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce just to prevent legal anarchy. Minimum wage? To prevent some real horrors.

[Kinser79]

(05-11-2016, 08:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce just to prevent legal anarchy. Minimum wage? To prevent some real horrors.

Except for one real reality, most employees and employers reside or are located in the same state. Using the commerce clause alone one could argue that the Federal Government could set minimum wages for transportation workers and telecommuting employees. Otherwise there isn't the crossing of state lines while on-the-clock that would necessitate the implementation of the Commerce Clause as an excuse for imposing a minimum wage.

To be sure I'm not opposing minimum wages themselves, but rather arguing that they like many other issues are no business of the federal government (except in clear cases where the commerce clause would apply). And no you can't use the commerce clause to regulate everything.

---

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution far longer than the 1930s.

[pbrower2a]

(05-11-2016, 12:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 08:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce just to prevent legal anarchy. Minimum wage? To prevent some real horrors.

Except for one real reality, most employees and employers reside or are located in the same state.  Using the commerce clause alone one could argue that the Federal Government could set minimum wages for transportation workers and telecommuting employees.  Otherwise there isn't the crossing of state lines while on-the-clock that would necessitate the implementation of the Commerce Clause as an excuse for imposing a minimum wage.

To be sure I'm not opposing minimum wages themselves, but rather arguing that they like many other issues are no business of the federal government (except in clear cases where the commerce clause would apply).  And no you can't use the commerce clause to regulate everything.

---

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution far longer than the 1930s.

That is the rationale. If a business is operating across state lines, then it is involved in interstate commerce. Even selling merchandise acquired from across state lines (including imports) or producing material intended to be sold across state lines makes a firm a participant in interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Stare decisis protects rulings made in the New Deal era on minimum wages.

[Galen]

(05-11-2016, 12:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution far longer than the 1930s.

The court didn't have nearly as much of a tendency legislate from the bench as it did after the court packing scheme of the thirties.  Now it just rewrites the law to get a desired outcome.  They did that twice with Obozocare.

[pbrower2a]

(05-11-2016, 03:27 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 12:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution far longer than the 1930s.

The court didn't have nearly as much of a tendency legislate from the bench as it did after the court packing scheme of the thirties.  Now it just rewrites the law to get a desired outcome.  They did that twice with Obozocare.

"Only an idiot would believe otherwise" is a poor argument against something that one disagrees with. All too often such is easily refuted as an argument.

[Kinser79]

(05-11-2016, 02:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That is the rationale. If a business is operating across state lines, then it is involved in interstate commerce. Even selling merchandise acquired from across state lines (including imports) or producing material intended to be sold across state lines makes a firm a participant in interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Stare decisis protects rulings made in the New Deal era on minimum wages.

No the commerce clause, which I know about from reading books not wikipedia, is clear. The economic activity that is being regulated has to be crossing state lines. Typically labor does not cross state lines (though arguments could be made in the specific cases I mentioned).

Stare Decisis applies until it is changed. That is the beauty of precedent, it stands until it is changed. The only reason it hasn't is because no one has yet brought litigation to change the precedent. So your "protection" only works as long as no body seeks a change.

---

(05-11-2016, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Only an idiot would believe otherwise" is a poor argument against something that one disagrees with. All too often such is easily refuted as an argument.

Then refute his point. I know you haven't refuted mine. Mostly because you can not.

[Galen]

(05-11-2016, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 03:27 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 12:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has been ignoring the Constitution far longer than the 1930s.

The court didn't have nearly as much of a tendency legislate from the bench as it did after the court packing scheme of the thirties.  Now it just rewrites the law to get a desired outcome.  They did that twice with Obozocare.

"Only an idiot would believe otherwise" is a poor argument against something that one disagrees with. All too often such is easily refuted as an argument.

I have read many books on the subject and the reason why the commerce clause came into being was because the several states were busy practicing a 'beggar thy neighbor' trade policy against each other.  It wasn't until the thirties that a more expansive interpretation came into being.  The end result was a decision that held that a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own purposes was interstate commerce.  Anyone with a dictionary and a clue would see this as an absurd decision but progressives tend to lack both of these things.

[pbrower2a]

(05-11-2016, 09:11 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 02:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That is the rationale. If a business is operating across state lines, then it is involved in interstate commerce. Even selling merchandise acquired from across state lines (including imports) or producing material intended to be sold across state lines makes a firm a participant in interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Stare decisis protects rulings made in the New Deal era on minimum wages.

No the commerce clause, which I know about from reading books not wikipedia, is clear.  The economic activity that is being regulated has to be crossing state lines.  Typically labor does not cross state lines (though arguments could be made in the specific cases I mentioned).

Stare Decisis applies until it is changed.  That is the beauty of precedent, it stands until it is changed.  The only reason it hasn't is because no one has yet brought litigation to change the precedent.  So your "protection" only works as long as no body seeks a change.

---

(05-11-2016, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Only an idiot would believe otherwise" is a poor argument against something that one disagrees with. All too often such is easily refuted as an argument.

Then refute his point.  I know you haven't refuted mine.  Mostly because you can not.

That's simply a point of logic. Brilliant people can believe in discreditable ideas -- let us say young-earth creationism. Add to that, commonplace errors of memory. Haven't we all?

People make specious and fraudulent arguments all the time, often with considerable sophistication. The fault  is with the speciousness or fraudulence of discreditable results of their sophisticated arguments.