How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[EverCurious]

Talk to DC, they decided to "reallocate" everything - again for the votes.

 

[danielpalos]

Talk to DC, they decided to "reallocate" everything - again for the votes.

Isn't that how Mr. Trump got elected?

 

[EverCurious]

Oh sure, I bet he "reallocated" Russian votes.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh sure, I bet he "reallocated" Russian votes.

It is the right wing that Insists, illegals voted.

 

[EverCurious]

Well that got legs considering Obama /told/ them to go vote...

The Russian collusion thing was basically made up by a Ukrainian Putin hating company, so a bit less leg with thinking folk.

 

[EverCurious]

Eh to be fair I suppose I have "insider" info on the whole Russia thing cause I'm more into the hacking shit than most ~shrug~

 

[Flopper]

A good question. A constitution is a higher form of law or a set of principals on which laws are based.

No, it's actually not a good question when the answer is so simple. The founders never meant it to be a living document.

Regardless of what they meant, that's how it turned out. As the years passed Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and others began telling us what they believed about taxes, government spending, and other topics. There comments were made within the context of their experiences and the changes that were taking place in world and the country at that time. This was the beginning of the concept of a living constitution. Thomas Jefferson presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations in 1816. Since then the congress, the executive branch and courts have been interpreting the constitution in such a way as to provide what the country needed at the time rather than providing what the constitution authorized.

There is little argument that the nation needs roads and highways that link the nation together. However, there is little in the constitution to support that type of project. In fact, Madison vetoed such a bill in 1817 because building roads was not part of the enumerated powers and thus not the responsibility of the federal government.

By 1924 it became clear that a single, unified system of highways in US was necessary which resulted in the Highway Act of 1925. Using federal funds to build roads was just as unconstitutional in 1925 as it was 1817. Congress justified the bill with the commerce clause which Madison had rejected. The Interstate highway system later was justified as providing for common defense. We have been making novel interpretations of the constitution and stretching it well beyond what the founders intended for last two hundred years. We will continue to do so because amending the constitution has become more and more difficult. The last amendment to the constitution took 203 years to ratify and all it did was change the the date that a congressmen's salary took effect.

Jefferson seemed pretty firm on the general welfare clause in the letters I posted form 1817 and 1825. See post #1012.

Those two letter were written 30 and 45 years after the constitution. A lot changed over that period as could Jefferson's opinion.

One could also reasonably argue that Jefferson presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations. In his 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval, excerpted on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial, he wrote

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors

The fact that Jefferson choose an interpretation, that was more in keeping with the times in his letters you quoted in 1817 and 1825 coupled with his letter of 1816 seem to indicate that he favored the concept of a living constitution as oppose to Originalism.

Living Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[OnePercenter]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Blocking minimum wage increases.

Google

You'd rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all? Isn't that what Americans have now?

If employers are screwing their employees, it is the governments job to make things right.

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

Not paying an employee is a crime. Under paying an employee is immoral. Paying market wages is collusion.

So who is it that decides what is underpaid? The market is the decider.

An employee is only worth as much as another person willing to do the same quality of job. I don't care how much education is involved, how much experience is involved, how much danger is involved.

We all think we should be paid more. But it all boils down to supply and demand.

When I was much younger in the early 80's I was repairing medical equipment. My company wanted me to go to electronics school after work, so I did.

After a few months, working full time six days a week, going to school three nights a week, and using any spare time to study got real old real quick. So I questioned my teacher about it. I asked what kind of money I could make (if I were not working) after I attended school for a year and got my FCC license? He told me about 16K a year. Unhappy with his answer, I asked again what a two year associates degree in electronics paid? He said about 18K a year. Hell, I was making more than that with the job I had, so I quit the school.

Electronics was very difficult at the time. It's all math and a good imagination. So why such little pay after all that money and time learning the trade? Because everybody and their mother wanted to be in the electronics field at the time too. Too much supply--almost no demand.

The same goes with hair dressing. Many young girls attend cosmetology school to learn how to style hair. That too takes a lot of training, and then there is licensing and government BS to get through. But hair styling is one of the ten lowest paid jobs to have. Why? Because nearly every girl wants to cut hair for a living.

The market is fixed. Using supply and demand to justify salaries is detrimental to employees and our economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Blocking minimum wage increases.

Google

You'd rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all? Isn't that what Americans have now?

If employers are screwing their employees, it is the governments job to make things right.

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

Not paying an employee is a crime. Under paying an employee is immoral. Paying market wages is collusion.

So who is it that decides what is underpaid? The market is the decider.

An employee is only worth as much as another person willing to do the same quality of job. I don't care how much education is involved, how much experience is involved, how much danger is involved.

We all think we should be paid more. But it all boils down to supply and demand.

When I was much younger in the early 80's I was repairing medical equipment. My company wanted me to go to electronics school after work, so I did.

After a few months, working full time six days a week, going to school three nights a week, and using any spare time to study got real old real quick. So I questioned my teacher about it. I asked what kind of money I could make (if I were not working) after I attended school for a year and got my FCC license? He told me about 16K a year. Unhappy with his answer, I asked again what a two year associates degree in electronics paid? He said about 18K a year. Hell, I was making more than that with the job I had, so I quit the school.

Electronics was very difficult at the time. It's all math and a good imagination. So why such little pay after all that money and time learning the trade? Because everybody and their mother wanted to be in the electronics field at the time too. Too much supply--almost no demand.

The same goes with hair dressing. Many young girls attend cosmetology school to learn how to style hair. That too takes a lot of training, and then there is licensing and government BS to get through. But hair styling is one of the ten lowest paid jobs to have. Why? Because nearly every girl wants to cut hair for a living.

The market is fixed. Using supply and demand to justify salaries is detrimental to employees and our economy.

Then how else would you do it?

The theme of the country today is "cheap." We all want cheaper things: cheaper cell phones, cheaper auto repair, cheaper food, cheaper lawn care service........

It's the consumer (not the manufacturer) that determines the wage people get paid. If you want to pay your floor sweepers $20.00 an hour, your toilet cleaners $18.00 an hour, your parts inspectors $25.00 an hour, who is going to buy your products when your competition is paying their employees less than half of what you pay and pass the savings to the customer?

You go to the store to buy a 50' string of Christmas lights for your home. One set costs $28.00, and the other costs $10.00. Which one are you going to buy?

Yes, more than 90% of people will choose the $10.00 set of Christmas lights. But if you are going to manufacture lights that cheap, you can't pay your employees livable wages.

 

[OnePercenter]

Blocking minimum wage increases.

Google

You'd rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all? Isn't that what Americans have now?

If employers are screwing their employees, it is the governments job to make things right.

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

Not paying an employee is a crime. Under paying an employee is immoral. Paying market wages is collusion.

So who is it that decides what is underpaid? The market is the decider.

An employee is only worth as much as another person willing to do the same quality of job. I don't care how much education is involved, how much experience is involved, how much danger is involved.

We all think we should be paid more. But it all boils down to supply and demand.

When I was much younger in the early 80's I was repairing medical equipment. My company wanted me to go to electronics school after work, so I did.

After a few months, working full time six days a week, going to school three nights a week, and using any spare time to study got real old real quick. So I questioned my teacher about it. I asked what kind of money I could make (if I were not working) after I attended school for a year and got my FCC license? He told me about 16K a year. Unhappy with his answer, I asked again what a two year associates degree in electronics paid? He said about 18K a year. Hell, I was making more than that with the job I had, so I quit the school.

Electronics was very difficult at the time. It's all math and a good imagination. So why such little pay after all that money and time learning the trade? Because everybody and their mother wanted to be in the electronics field at the time too. Too much supply--almost no demand.

The same goes with hair dressing. Many young girls attend cosmetology school to learn how to style hair. That too takes a lot of training, and then there is licensing and government BS to get through. But hair styling is one of the ten lowest paid jobs to have. Why? Because nearly every girl wants to cut hair for a living.

The market is fixed. Using supply and demand to justify salaries is detrimental to employees and our economy.

Then how else would you do it?

The theme of the country today is "cheap." We all want cheaper things: cheaper cell phones, cheaper auto repair, cheaper food, cheaper lawn care service........

It's the consumer (not the manufacturer) that determines the wage people get paid. If you want to pay your floor sweepers $20.00 an hour, your toilet cleaners $18.00 an hour, your parts inspectors $25.00 an hour, who is going to buy your products when your competition is paying their employees less than half of what you pay and pass the savings to the customer?

You go to the store to buy a 50' string of Christmas lights for your home. One set costs $28.00, and the other costs $10.00. Which one are you going to buy?

Yes, more than 90% of people will choose the $10.00 set of Christmas lights. But if you are going to manufacture lights that cheap, you can't pay your employees livable wages.

People want cheap because they can't afford expensive.

Companies want cheap labor because they want more net.

The truth is that if a company spent 5% of their net on payroll, they could afford to pay $15.00/hr., but they're greedy and want the 5%.

 

[Flopper]

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

Not paying an employee is a crime. Under paying an employee is immoral. Paying market wages is collusion.

So who is it that decides what is underpaid? The market is the decider.

An employee is only worth as much as another person willing to do the same quality of job. I don't care how much education is involved, how much experience is involved, how much danger is involved.

We all think we should be paid more. But it all boils down to supply and demand.

When I was much younger in the early 80's I was repairing medical equipment. My company wanted me to go to electronics school after work, so I did.

After a few months, working full time six days a week, going to school three nights a week, and using any spare time to study got real old real quick. So I questioned my teacher about it. I asked what kind of money I could make (if I were not working) after I attended school for a year and got my FCC license? He told me about 16K a year. Unhappy with his answer, I asked again what a two year associates degree in electronics paid? He said about 18K a year. Hell, I was making more than that with the job I had, so I quit the school.

Electronics was very difficult at the time. It's all math and a good imagination. So why such little pay after all that money and time learning the trade? Because everybody and their mother wanted to be in the electronics field at the time too. Too much supply--almost no demand.

The same goes with hair dressing. Many young girls attend cosmetology school to learn how to style hair. That too takes a lot of training, and then there is licensing and government BS to get through. But hair styling is one of the ten lowest paid jobs to have. Why? Because nearly every girl wants to cut hair for a living.

The market is fixed. Using supply and demand to justify salaries is detrimental to employees and our economy.

Then how else would you do it?

The theme of the country today is "cheap." We all want cheaper things: cheaper cell phones, cheaper auto repair, cheaper food, cheaper lawn care service........

It's the consumer (not the manufacturer) that determines the wage people get paid. If you want to pay your floor sweepers $20.00 an hour, your toilet cleaners $18.00 an hour, your parts inspectors $25.00 an hour, who is going to buy your products when your competition is paying their employees less than half of what you pay and pass the savings to the customer?

You go to the store to buy a 50' string of Christmas lights for your home. One set costs $28.00, and the other costs $10.00. Which one are you going to buy?

Yes, more than 90% of people will choose the $10.00 set of Christmas lights. But if you are going to manufacture lights that cheap, you can't pay your employees livable wages.

People want cheap because they can't afford expensive.

Companies want cheap labor because they want more net.

The truth is that if a company spent 5% of their net on payroll, they could afford to pay $15.00/hr., but they're greedy and want the 5%.

Of course there're greedy. Most people are which is why we need regulations otherwise they would destroy the free market and the economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

Not paying an employee is a crime. Under paying an employee is immoral. Paying market wages is collusion.

So who is it that decides what is underpaid? The market is the decider.

An employee is only worth as much as another person willing to do the same quality of job. I don't care how much education is involved, how much experience is involved, how much danger is involved.

We all think we should be paid more. But it all boils down to supply and demand.

When I was much younger in the early 80's I was repairing medical equipment. My company wanted me to go to electronics school after work, so I did.

After a few months, working full time six days a week, going to school three nights a week, and using any spare time to study got real old real quick. So I questioned my teacher about it. I asked what kind of money I could make (if I were not working) after I attended school for a year and got my FCC license? He told me about 16K a year. Unhappy with his answer, I asked again what a two year associates degree in electronics paid? He said about 18K a year. Hell, I was making more than that with the job I had, so I quit the school.

Electronics was very difficult at the time. It's all math and a good imagination. So why such little pay after all that money and time learning the trade? Because everybody and their mother wanted to be in the electronics field at the time too. Too much supply--almost no demand.

The same goes with hair dressing. Many young girls attend cosmetology school to learn how to style hair. That too takes a lot of training, and then there is licensing and government BS to get through. But hair styling is one of the ten lowest paid jobs to have. Why? Because nearly every girl wants to cut hair for a living.

The market is fixed. Using supply and demand to justify salaries is detrimental to employees and our economy.

Then how else would you do it?

The theme of the country today is "cheap." We all want cheaper things: cheaper cell phones, cheaper auto repair, cheaper food, cheaper lawn care service........

It's the consumer (not the manufacturer) that determines the wage people get paid. If you want to pay your floor sweepers $20.00 an hour, your toilet cleaners $18.00 an hour, your parts inspectors $25.00 an hour, who is going to buy your products when your competition is paying their employees less than half of what you pay and pass the savings to the customer?

You go to the store to buy a 50' string of Christmas lights for your home. One set costs $28.00, and the other costs $10.00. Which one are you going to buy?

Yes, more than 90% of people will choose the $10.00 set of Christmas lights. But if you are going to manufacture lights that cheap, you can't pay your employees livable wages.

People want cheap because they can't afford expensive.

Companies want cheap labor because they want more net.

The truth is that if a company spent 5% of their net on payroll, they could afford to pay $15.00/hr., but they're greedy and want the 5%.

They're greedy, but the American consumer isn't?

Ever go to a Walmart and see some of the cars those "poor" shoppers are driving?

No, companies don't want more net--companies want more growth. The better the growth of their company, the more investors they can attract.

You think it's about what companies can afford. It's not about that. It's about paying labor what labor is worth. It's about what your competition is paying their employees so you can compete against them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I’m counting down the days....looking forward to welfare reform the Trump way....hahaha

 

[fbj]

I’m counting down the days....looking forward to welfare reform the Trump way....hahaha

That would never Mongo

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP has been cutting services and opportunities for the poor for 50 years. And you blame the poor? Silly brainwashed GOP dupes.

 

[MaryL]

How do we stop the rich from being so domineering?

 

[Thinker101]

The GOP has been cutting services and opportunities for the poor for 50 years. And you blame the poor? Silly brainwashed GOP dupes.

Go get a fricken job, that should help you fix part of your problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do we stop the rich from being so domineering?

Proportional Representation.

 

[MaryL]

How do we stop the rich from being so domineering?

Proportional Representation.

How does that work?

 

[Lakhota]

How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

Stop stealing from them.