Trump and the minimum wage

[Kinser79]

(05-12-2016, 03:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 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.

I suppose if one cannot bedazzle them with brilliance one must try to befuddle them with bullshit.

So in short, if I'm interpreting your word salad correctly, is that you can't refute Galen's and My claim that the commerce clause does not apply to minimum wages (excluding the special circumstances I indicated) because labor does not cross state lines because in order to do so you would have to argue that a McDonald's worker who works in Mississippi directly competes with a McDonald's worker in New York State.  The simple fact of the matter is that argument cannot be made.  Neither McDonald's worker is crossing state lines and neither produces an item which would be subject to crossing state lines.  The line of argument, that they actually are in competition with each other, is as we call it in the trade...fucking stupid.

In fact any and all federal regulations that a McDonald's restaurant would be subject to would rests (apart from the unconstitutional minimum wage, and barely constitutional ACA) at the point of procurement of their ingredients.  In short the meat, bread, vegetables and other materials used to assemble your Big Mac whether you purchase it in Mississippi or New York State.  All of which the USDA regulates relatively reasonably, and most of which at some point have crossed a state line, and the meat and vegetables certainly have even if the breads have not, either in production or transportation to the location of final cooking and assembly.

As such, were minimum wages a matter of federal regulations, and not reserved to the States via the 10th amendment, every increase on the current Federal Minimum Wage issued by states like New York, New Jersey, Florida and etc are all unconstitutional.  Why?  Because Federal Law takes precedence over state law.

U.S. v Darby Lumber held that a state could not use its power to decrease it's minimum wages for competitive advantage of companies in its state, therefore it is also conceivable that one could argue that states likewise do not have the power to increase their minimum wages for economic advantages created by increased aggregate demand.

In essence in order for your position to be correct PBR you have to lower the wages of minimum wage workers in 28 states, 1 Territory and DC!

[pbrower2a]

(05-12-2016, 05:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-12-2016, 03:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 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.

I suppose if one cannot bedazzle them with brilliance one must try to befuddle them with bullshit.

So in short, if I'm interpreting your word salad correctly, is that you can't refute Galen's and My claim that the commerce clause does not apply to minimum wages (excluding the special circumstances I indicated) because labor does not cross state lines because in order to do so you would have to argue that a McDonald's worker who works in Mississippi directly competes with a McDonald's worker in New York State.  The simple fact of the matter is that argument cannot be made.  Neither McDonald's worker is crossing state lines and neither produces an item which would be subject to crossing state lines.  The line of argument, that they actually are in competition with each other, is as we call it in the trade...fucking stupid.

In fact any and all federal regulations that a McDonald's restaurant would be subject to would rests (apart from the unconstitutional minimum wage, and barely constitutional ACA) at the point of procurement of their ingredients.  In short the meat, bread, vegetables and other materials used to assemble your Big Mac whether you purchase it in Mississippi or New York State.  All of which the USDA regulates relatively reasonably, and most of which at some point have crossed a state line, and the meat and vegetables certainly have even if the breads have not, either in production or transportation to the location of final cooking and assembly.

As such, were minimum wages a matter of federal regulations, and not reserved to the States via the 10th amendment, every increase on the current Federal Minimum Wage issued by states like New York, New Jersey, Florida and etc are all unconstitutional.  Why?  Because Federal Law takes precedence over state law.

U.S. v Darby Lumber held that a state could not use its power to decrease it's minimum wages for competitive advantage of companies in its state, therefore it is also conceivable that one could argue that states likewise do not have the power to increase their minimum wages for economic advantages created by increased aggregate demand.

In essence in order for your position to be correct PBR you have to lower the wages of minimum wage workers in 28 states, 1 Territory and DC!

I do not have the legal training to make reliable predictions or explanations of judicial findings. Neither do you. Neither does Galen.

If states can have different speed laws they can also have different wage laws.

[Anthony '58]

There should be a modular minimum wage, based on state and even metropolitan area costs of living - but it must be administered federally, because the red states cannot be trusted to do the right thing on this any more than they could be trusted to do the right thing about civil rights 50-60 years ago.

[Kinser79]

(05-16-2016, 09:01 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: There should be a modular minimum wage, based on state and even metropolitan area costs of living - but it must be administered federally, because the red states cannot be trusted to do the right thing on this any more than they could be trusted to do the right thing about civil rights 50-60 years ago.

Minimum wage is not listed in the powers enumerated to the congress. Some would argue that prevents Congress from passing any law on those issues at all per the 10th amendment. I'm not sure I necessarily buy that, but I do think that most states, even the red ones can be trusted to pass a minimum wage law--since just about everyone supports raising it from time to time.

The most segregated cities at the time period indicated, and even today, are New York City, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles. Tell me which red states are those cities located in?

For all the noise about how bad the South was during the Civil Rights Era, the North is the one that had the Race Riots, the Black Panthers and all other manner of problems and violence.

[Bronco80]

The right wing tends to be OK with raising the minimum wage merely to a point where it becomes a mostly irrelevant change for the biggest employers, as was the case when Bush signed a federal hike with a Democratic Congress in 2007.

[Kinser79]

(05-16-2016, 11:40 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: The right wing tends to be OK with raising the minimum wage merely to a point where it becomes a mostly irrelevant change for the biggest employers, as was the case when Bush signed a federal hike with a Democratic Congress in 2007.

Yes but with minimum wages administered by the states, that often gets shoved into a ballot initiative. The fact remains that state governments are quicker to raise minimum wages then the Federal government. Even if the constitutionality of a federal minimum wage were not in doubt (and it is) it would still be better administered by states just because state governments have a tendency to be more responsive to the people.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Minimum wage is not listed in the powers enumerated to the congress.

Which means that the FAA is also "unconstitutional."

[Kinser79]

(05-17-2016, 09:23 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:

Quote:Minimum wage is not listed in the powers enumerated to the congress.

Which means that the FAA is also "unconstitutional."

Nope. Last I checked most flights crossed state lines and many flights cross international boundaries as such the FAA falls under the commerce clause. But if you truly believe the FAA is unconstitutional by all means bring a suit to federal court.

[Galen]

(05-17-2016, 02:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 09:23 AM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:Minimum wage is not listed in the powers enumerated to the congress.

Which means that the FAA is also "unconstitutional."

Nope.  Last I checked most flights crossed state lines and many flights cross international boundaries as such the FAA falls under the commerce clause.  But if you truly believe the FAA is unconstitutional by all means bring a suit to federal court.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause.  However I would also say that the FAA really shouldn't be regulating aircraft that do not cross state lines.  Drones would be a good example of this since most of them can only stay aloft for minutes at a time.

[Kinser79]

Drones present a bit of a problem. The question should be can they be reasonably used for interstate or international trade, or could they disrupt the flow of such. If the answer is yes, then the FAA has a role in regulating them, if not then the FAA does not. I'm no expert on drones, so...

[Bronco80]

(05-18-2016, 01:10 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 02:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Nope.  Last I checked most flights crossed state lines and many flights cross international boundaries as such the FAA falls under the commerce clause.  But if you truly believe the FAA is unconstitutional by all means bring a suit to federal court.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause.  However I would also say that the FAA really shouldn't be regulating aircraft that do not cross state lines.  Drones would be a good example of this since most of them can only stay aloft for minutes at a time.

Commerce that doesn't cross state lines can still be federally regulated as a part of a larger regulatory scheme, and the Supreme Court has made this clear starting with Wickard v. Filburn and most recently in Gonzales v. Raich (and even though the latter upheld a bad policy, it was still a constitutional one).  If one were to really sharply declare commerce solely inside one state as federally off limits there would be so much declared unconstitutional that it would be a nightmare.

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2016, 04:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Drones present a bit of a problem.  The question should be can they be reasonably used for interstate or international trade, or could they disrupt the flow of such.  If the answer is yes, then the FAA has a role in regulating them, if not then the FAA does not.  I'm no expert on drones, so...

Potentially big problems with violations of privacy. People might think themselves safe to do some nude sunbathing behind a tall fence, but the drone will allow someone to put a camera at an angle to see the nude sunbather. Even worse, it could be a tool for stalking.

Others include using the drone to facilitate a crime -- casing a place for a burglary, disposing of evidence (instructions to drop the criminally-used firearm into deep water so that it can never be found), or serving as a look-out. They could be used even for the transportation of illicit drugs.

Of course, drones could also be used to aid law enforcement, as in monitoring highway speeds or following criminal suspects. A drone could look into buildings to see where the marijuana plants are. They could also look into a stopped car to search for weapons.

It's a new technology with open-ended use, not all benign.

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 08:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-18-2016, 04:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Drones present a bit of a problem.  The question should be can they be reasonably used for interstate or international trade, or could they disrupt the flow of such.  If the answer is yes, then the FAA has a role in regulating them, if not then the FAA does not.  I'm no expert on drones, so...

Potentially big problems with violations of privacy. People might think themselves safe to do some nude sunbathing behind a tall fence, but the drone will allow someone to put a camera at an angle to see the nude sunbather. Even worse, it could be a tool for stalking.

Given the current expense of drones why go through all that trouble for nude picks or stalking when both are more easily and cheaply done through the internet. Also I've never understood sunbathing, why would the Melanin deficient want to purpously court skin cancer?

Quote:Others include using the drone to facilitate a crime -- casing a place for a burglary, disposing of evidence (instructions to drop the criminally-used firearm into deep water so that it can never be found), or serving as a look-out. They could be used even for the transportation of illicit drugs.

I've got news for you all technology can be used to facilitate crime. As for transporting illicit drugs I have a radical proposal--legalize all drugs.

Quote:Of course, drones could also be used to aid law enforcement, as in monitoring highway speeds or following criminal suspects. A drone could look into buildings to see where the marijuana plants are. They could also look into a stopped car to search for weapons.

That would be a relatively benign purpose other than searching out someone's grass garden. See my previous comment about legalizing all drugs.

Quote:It's a new technology with open-ended use, not all benign.

True of all other technologies.

I'm not seeing where your posts answers my observation. In what way could these machines be used in international trade, interstate trade or disrupt either?

[Mikebert]

(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. 

Yes it is.  The only minimum wage he can abolish is the Federal one.  If he does that, of course the state laws will still be on the books, the president has no power to change that.

Bringing up the fact that the state laws would still be in place is a red herring.

Getting rid of the Federal minimum wage has been on the Republican wish list for a long time.  It's hugely unpopular and so they do not try to sell it in general election campaigns.  But Trump seems to be an exception to the normal rules of politics.  So Trump is giving it a whirl.  Looks like its working on you.  If it does not pan out it will go away; it has been amply demonstrated that Trump pays no price for flip-flopping.

But if Trump can win with that promise intact, the the Congress will have the cover to go ahead and do it.  The idea of making union bastion Michigan a right-to-work state was pretty crazy particularly when the governor ran as being opposed to the idea.  But it happened. 

Industrial cities like Milwaukee, Kalamazoo and Flint all had many decades when industry dumped waste in the river.  As a result these river bottoms are filled with sludge.  Nobody would use river water as a source of drinking water.  In Milwaukee and Flint they used lake water, in Kalamazoo we use well water.  Christ, the Kalamazoo river sediment is known to be full of PCBs.  Not only that, but a few years back 800,000 gallons of crude oil were dumped in the river.  So when I first heard about the water issue in Flint and learned they were using river water, I thought, glad I am not drinking that water.  And so when there were reports of deaths, and then later lead in the water, I wasn't surprised.  And when I learned it has occurred under a GOP-controlled state management, well that was just another case of Republican governance.  After all, the roads are falling apart because the GOP refused to raise the gas tax, which supplies the money for road maintenance.

And why did Flint and so many other cities get into fiscal trouble?  Well it was that goddam prop A the GOP forced on us in the early 1990's.  In the old days cities funded their operations from property taxes.  Prop A eliminated the cities ability to do that, and cut the amount of revenue they were receiving from local property taxes.  For example in 1991 we paid about $2400 in property taxes ($4200 in today's money).  Today we pay $2000, so our taxes are half what they were then.  This implies the city is collecting half today of what they did from local revenues back then.

In exchange they were to receive money from the state obtained from a 50% increase in the sales tax.  But that did not always happen to the extent promised. Republican-controlled states preferred to use the money for tax cuts.  (The do this at the Fed level, but their the shortfall just becomes bigger deficits). It would be a lot worse here if not for the Kalamazoo promise (Bless their hearts).

What state do you live in, do you have experience with Republican state governance?

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 06:05 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Yes it is.  The only minimum wage he can abolish is the Federal one.  If he does that, of course the state laws will still be on the books, the president has no power to change that.

Bringing up the fact that the state laws would still be in place is a red herring.

Getting rid of the Federal minimum wage has been on the Republican wish list for a long time.  It's hugely unpopular and so they do not try to sell it in general election campaigns. 

I would argue it is so unpopular that no matter the rhetoric it will never be done.

Quote: But Trump seems to be an exception to the normal rules of politics.  So Trump is giving it a whirl.  Looks like its working on you.  If it does not pan out it will go away; it has been amply demonstrated that Trump pays no price for flip-flopping.

Something that I don't think people take into consideration, Daddy usually speaks his mind without a filter. Also everyone whose been paying attention knows that he says outrageous things to get the press talking about him. Good press, bad press doesn't matter it is all free advertising for him. It enables him to run a campaign and win under budget. Of course anyone who has read The Art of the Deal would know that already.

Quote:What state do you live in, do you have experience with Republican state governance?

I can't speak to Michigan politics, though since you called the Tax thing a "Proposition" I think I can assume that it was a ballot initiative and as such you really need to blame the electorate. I would say that Rick Snyder is perhaps particularly sociopathic. The Michigan Mini-Dictator..er..I mean Emergency Manager law doesn't help either.

As for what state I live in, that would be Florida--I only mention that fact at least once a week. We've had a Republican Governor and Republican Majority in both houses since 1998. I'm well versed in how the GOP runs states. Trust me the Democrats are worse, every Democrat governor we've had with the exception of Lawton Chiles was either directly connected to the Klan or was as crooked as a dog's hind leg. That's why Florida doesn't elect Democrat Govs any more and Dem Reps and Senators are mostly limited to mini-New York in South Florida and the I-4 corridor before you hit solid red Cuba Del Norte.

[Anthony '58]

But Trump's Malthusian policies would render any statutory minimum wage irrelevant - since even the most menial jobs would command even higher wages than any political faction would advocate raising the statutory minimum wage to.

And we know this to be the case because of what happened in the 1920s: Two years after cutting off essentially all immigration in 1924, unemployment plummeted to less than 2% and everybody ran off and bought cars and radios, and wired up their homes for electricity and telephone service; if their wages hadn't skyrocketed, they would hardly have been able to afford to buy and do these things.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Clinton would cut the minimum wage as per the directives of wall street if she is elected. Not Raise it.

[Marypoza]

The Donald is a wuss:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2...ers-223674

[Odin]

(05-30-2016, 07:36 PM)Marypoza Wrote: The Donald is a wuss:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2...ers-223674

one could say he's a low energy loser!

[pbrower2a]

(05-23-2016, 09:41 AM)Anthony Wrote: But Trump's Malthusian policies would render any statutory minimum wage irrelevant - since even the most menial jobs would command even higher wages than any political faction would advocate raising the statutory minimum wage to.

And we know this to be the case because of what happened in the 1920s: Two years after cutting off essentially all immigration in 1924, unemployment plummeted to less than 2% and everybody ran off and bought cars and radios, and wired up their homes for electricity and telephone service; if their wages hadn't skyrocketed, they would hardly have been able to afford to buy and do these things.

Wages, whatever they did, did not soar. They rose more slowly than productivity, which allowed unusually-high levels of profits. Economic inequality intensified during the late 1920s to an extent that Americans would not know for another eighty years.

Productivity increased due to the electrification of manufacturing facilities. The imbalance between profits and wages allowed consumer spending to lag GNP, and much of the profit went into speculative activities in a bubble economy because opportunities for further profit other than speculation disappeared. We all know the rest.

In the Double-Zero decade, many businesses experienced new growth of productivity through cost cutting due to computers and the Internet. Wages also failed to keep up with profits, and a speculative boom ensued.

1929.4-1931.2 and 2007.4-2009.2 make excellent parallels. The number after the year indicates the quarter of the year. Of course political leadership in 2009 and 1931 were very different.